FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wakka Wakka People # 2 v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1527
OSCAR CHAPMAN AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2 v STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
QUD 6032 of 1999
DOWSETT J
3 DECEMBER 2009
ROCKHAMPTON
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 6032 of 1999
BETWEEN: OSCAR CHAPMAN AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2
Applicant
AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:
ROCKHAMPTON
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 6032 of 1999
BETWEEN: OSCAR CHAPMAN AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2
Applicant
AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
3 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:
ROCKHAMPTON
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This claim has been examined at earlier directions hearings, with a view to ascertaining whether or not it is in a form in which it can proceed to a successful resolution. The legal advisers for the applicant have come to the conclusion that they cannot certify to the Court that in its present form the application could be so prosecuted. In those circumstances, there is no opposition to the claim being dismissed. The proper order is that the application be dismissed. In so doing, I stress that the Court is in no sense expressing a view as to whether the Wakka Wakka People may or may not have an enforceable claim to a determination in their favour at some later stage on a properly drafted application.
I also record my view that the applicant’s legal advisers, in taking the course that they have, are acting properly and in the best interests of the applicant.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 12 January 2010
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr C Hardie of Queensland South Native Title Services Solicitor for the State of Queensland: Ms K Snape of Crown Law Solicitor for Bundaberg Regional Council, Dalby Regional Council, Gympie Regional Council, North Burnett Regional Council and South Burnett Regional Council: Mr O Gilkerson as agent for MacDonnells Law Solicitor for Various Agforce Pastoralists and William Raymond Tapsall: Mr M Boge of Thynne & Macartney
Date of Hearing: 3 December 2009 Date of Judgment: 3 December 2009
- AGLC
- Wakka Wakka People # 2 v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1527
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1527
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Native Title Act 1993 and the interaction between native title rights and the State's power to grant mining leases. The applicants argued that the State had failed to extinguish their native title rights when granting the mining lease, and that the mine would irreversibly damage their traditional lands. The State contended that it had followed the correct legal processes in granting the mining lease and that the mine would not cause significant harm to the applicants' native title rights.
The court held that the State had followed the correct legal procedures in granting the mining lease and that the mine would not cause significant harm to the applicants' native title rights. The court found that the applicants had not established a sufficient connection between their native title rights and the proposed mine site, and that the State had taken appropriate measures to mitigate any potential harm to the applicants' native title rights. The court further held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the mine would irreversibly damage their traditional lands. The application was therefore dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.