Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland

The Mandandanji people, represented by Weribone, sought a determination of native title over a specific area in Queensland. This case marked the fourth attempt by the Mandandanji to secure such a determination. Previous claims had been withdrawn or dismissed. The present proceeding involved extensive preparation, including expert anthropological reports, tenure research, and statements from lay witnesses. The parties, after receiving advice from legal and expert sources, agreed to a consent determination under section 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that native title did not exist in the claimed area. The court was tasked with determining whether such a consent determination was appropriate.

The primary legal issue was whether the consent determination agreed upon by the parties was appropriate under section 87(1A) of the Act. The court considered several factors in making this determination, including the significant differences between the expert anthropological evidence, the relatively small and scattered portions of land and water where native title could potentially exist, the complexity and stress of a contested trial, the high costs involved, and the advice given by the applicant's senior counsel regarding the prospects of success. The court also noted that the State had agreed to the negative determination and that no indigenous land use agreement was part of the parties' agreement. The overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions under sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) was also considered, particularly the duty of the parties to conduct the proceeding in a manner consistent with these provisions.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the agreement for a negative determination was appropriate. The differences in expert evidence, the limited potential areas where native title could exist, and the other factors weighed in favor of the agreement. The court was satisfied that the parties had acted in accordance with their duty under section 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to conduct the proceeding in a manner consistent with the overarching purpose of the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the consent determination was an appropriate resolution of the matter.

By consent, the court made a determination that native title did not exist in the specified Determination Area, which included land and waters described in the Schedule and depicted in the attached map. The applicant and the State were each ordered to bear their own costs. The decision provided finality to the parties and the public regarding rights and interests in the real property in question.