FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wharton on behalf of the Kooma People v State of Queensland [2002] FCA 1112
WAYNE WHARTON ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORSQG6031 OF 1998
UNA BRANFIELD (PONJYDUFLJYDU) AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE (No. 2) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Q6012 OF 2002
EMMETT J
BRISBANE28 AUGUST 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q6031 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
WAYNE WHARTON ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS
RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
EMMETT
DATE OF ORDER:
28 AUGUST 2002
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the applicants in proceeding Q6012/02 be joined as respondents to this proceeding;
2.any respondents make any application which he/she/it is advised to make under sections 64B or 84C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by notice of motion returnable for directions before Emmett J on 13 November 2002;
3.any such notice of motion is to be filed and served, together with any affidavits in support of it, no later than 23 October 2002;
4.any affidavits intended to be relied on by the applicant in the proceeding are to be filed and served no later than 6 November 2002;
5.there be referred to the National Native Title Tribunal, for mediation, the question of whether the applicant has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People;
6.the Tribunal furnish to the Court and to the parties, no later than 13 November 2002, a report as to the progress of the mediation referred to in order 5;
7.the proceeding be listed for directions generally on 13 November 2002 at 9.30 am.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q6012 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
UNA BRANFIELD (PONJYDUFLJYDU) AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE (No. 2)
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT
DATE OF ORDER:
28 AUGUST 2002
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the applicant in proceeding QG6031/98 be joined as a respondent to this proceeding;
2.any respondents make any application which he/she/it is advised to make under sections 64B or 84C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by notice of motion returnable for directions before Emmett J on 13 November 2002;
3.any such notice of motion is to be filed and served, together with any affidavits in support of it, no later than 23 October 2002;
4.any affidavits intended to be relied on by the applicant in the proceeding are to be filed and served no later than 6 November 2002;
5.there be referred to the National Native Title Tribunal, for mediation, the question of whether the applicant has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People;
6.the Tribunal furnish to the Court and to the parties, no later than 13 November 2002, a report as to the progress of the mediation referred to in order 5;
7.the proceeding be listed for directions generally on 13 November 2002 at 9.30 am.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG6031 OF 1998
Q6012 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
WAYNE WHARTON ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT
BETWEEN:
UNA BRANFIELD (PONJYDUFLJYDU) AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE KOOMA PEOPLE (NO. 2)
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:
EMMETT
DATE:
28 AUGUST 2002
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have before me today, for directions, proceedings QG6031 of 1998 and Q6012 of 2002. Each is purportedly brought on behalf of the Kooma People in relation to precisely the same land. There is, it appears, a dispute between the applicants in each of those proceedings as to who has authority to speak on behalf of the Kooma People. Proceeding QG6031 of 1998 has progressed to some extent. Proceeding Q6012 of 2002 is of fairly recent commencement. It is clearly undesirable that two proceedings remain on foot in relation to the same land purportedly brought on behalf of the same Native Title Claim Group.
It appears to me that the appropriate course, in an endeavour to bring the conflict to a head for resolution, assuming it cannot be resolved by mediation, is to order that the claimant in proceeding QG6031 of 1998 be joined as a respondent in proceeding Q6012 of 2002 and the claimants in proceeding Q6012 of 2002 be joined as respondents in proceeding QG6031 of 1998.
I will then give leave to any respondent in either proceeding to make an application for an order under either s 66B(1) or s 84C(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). In that way the question of which of the claimants has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People can be resolved.
I have been informed by senior counsel for the applicants in Q6012 of 2002 that mediation is unlikely to bring any resolution. I am reluctant to impose any additional burden on the parties that is unlikely to achieve resolution. However, I am disposed to the view that a direction for mediation, even if it does not resolve the question of authority, would at least serve to isolate the issues that are likely to be raised for determination by the Court as to the question of authority. I therefore propose to refer to the Tribunal for mediation the question of who has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People in relation to the land that is the subject of the two claims.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate:
Dated: 9 September 2002
| Counsel for the applicant: | Mr A. Preston |
| Solicitor for State of Queensland: | Department of the Premier and Cabinet |
| Counsel for the Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation: | Mr M. Maurice QC |
| For and on behalf of the Gunggarri People: | Mr R. Munn |
| Date of Hearing: | 28 August 2002 |
| Date of Judgment: | 28 August 2002 |
- AGLC
- Wharton on behalf of the Kooma People v State of Queensland [2002] FCA 1112
- Case
- [2002] FCA 1112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether Wharton possessed the necessary authority to initiate and represent the Kooma People in a native title claim, given the complex nature of native title and the specific statutory requirements outlined in the Native Title Act. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the procedural steps required to address these issues within the framework of the Act, including the appropriate mediation process under the Act. The court's decision involved a careful analysis of the legislative provisions, the procedural directives, and the specific circumstances of the case to ensure that the process adhered to the legal standards and requirements.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Native Title Act and the procedural fairness expected in such cases. It concluded that the applicant's authority to bring the claim needed to be verified through a mediation process overseen by the National Native Title Tribunal. The court issued orders directing the mediation to be conducted and reported back to the court by a specified date. Additionally, it mandated that certain procedural steps, including the joining of other applicants as respondents and the filing of relevant notices and affidavits, be completed by set deadlines to ensure the case could proceed efficiently and fairly. The court also scheduled a directions hearing to oversee the progress of the mediation and to address any further procedural matters that might arise.
The final orders of the court included joining the relevant parties, setting timelines for the filing of notices and affidavits, referring the question of the applicant's authority to mediation, and scheduling a hearing to monitor the mediation process. This comprehensive approach aimed to ensure that the native title claim could be properly evaluated while adhering to the legal requirements and procedural fairness.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the applicants in proceeding Q6012/02 be joined as respondents to this proceeding;
2. any respondents make any application which he/she/it is advised to make under sections 64B or 84C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by notice of motion returnable for directions before Emmett J on 13 November 2002;
3. any such notice of motion is to be filed and served, together with any affidavits in support of it, no later than 23 October 2002;
4. any affidavits intended to be relied on by the applicant in the proceeding are to be filed and served no later than 6 November 2002;
5. there be referred to the National Native Title Tribunal, for mediation, the question of whether the applicant has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People;
6. the Tribunal furnish to the Court and to the parties, no later than 13 November 2002, a report as to the progress of the mediation referred to in order 5;
7. the proceeding be listed for directions generally on 13 November 2002 at 9.30 am.
1. the applicant in proceeding QG6031/98 be joined as a respondent to this proceeding;
2. any respondents make any application which he/she/it is advised to make under sections 64B or 84C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by notice of motion returnable for directions before Emmett J on 13 November 2002;
3. any such notice of motion is to be filed and served, together with any affidavits in support of it, no later than 23 October 2002;
4. any affidavits intended to be relied on by the applicant in the proceeding are to be filed and served no later than 6 November 2002;
5. there be referred to the National Native Title Tribunal, for mediation, the question of whether the applicant has authority to bring a claim on behalf of the Kooma People;
6. the Tribunal furnish to the Court and to the parties, no later than 13 November 2002, a report as to the progress of the mediation referred to in order 5;
7. the proceeding be listed for directions generally on 13 November 2002 at 9.30 am.
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: EMMETT J
Full text does not contain this section.