Wyman on behalf of the Bidjara People v State of Queensland

[2012] FCA 416

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wyman on behalf of the Bidjara People v State of Queensland [2012] FCA 416

Citation:		Wyman on behalf of the Bidjara People v State of Queensland [2012] FCA 416
Parties:		BRENDAN WYMAN & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIDJARA PEOPLE v STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND ORS
File number:		QUD 216 of 2008
Judge:		REEVES J
Date of judgment:		3 April 2012
Date of hearing:	23 March 2012 and 3 April 2012
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Applicant:	L Stephens
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Trevor Hauff Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent:	R Webb QC
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Crown Law
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	J Creamer
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Redmond & Redmond
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	J Waters and T Jowett
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Rob Powrie Legal Consultants

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 216 of 2008

BETWEEN:	BRENDAN WYMAN & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIDJARA PEOPLE Applicant
AND:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND ORS Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 APRIL 2012
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application sought in paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (d) of the application of the Bidjara People filed 21 March 2012 is dismissed.

2.The application sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application of the Bidjara People filed 21 March 2012 is dismissed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 216 of 2008

BETWEEN:	BRENDAN WYMAN & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIDJARA PEOPLE Applicant
AND:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND ORS Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE:	3 APRIL 2012
PLACE:	BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Bidjara People have sought interlocutory injunctions against Dr Sackett in the Queensland South Native Title Services in relation to material which they say is confidential or privileged and in the possession of both of those persons. They are not parties to these proceedings.

2. There is no proof of service of the application and supporting materials on either Dr Sackett or Queensland South Native Title Services, before me.  I gave a direction last week that all the evidence that any party wished to rely upon in support of these applications, which included the application seeking these injunctions, should be filed by 28 March 2012.

3. In response to the absence of any proof of service of these two persons, Mr Stephens sought to rely upon some further material in support of the application, namely oral evidence from his instructing solicitor about service.

4. Given the direction I had made last week and the fact Mr Stephens was unable to provide any reason why I should give him leave to now rely upon further materials, I refused that leave.

5. It therefore remains the case that there is no proof that either of Dr Sackett or Queensland South Native Title Services has been served and in those circumstances, I refuse the application for the injunction against both of them.

6. So I dismiss the application sought in paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (d) of the application of the Bidjara People filed 21 March 2012.

7. There is an application before me by the Bidjara People for non party discovery under r 20.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 against Queensland South Native Title Services and State of Queensland.

8. On an application under that rule, subrule (2) requires that the application must be served personally on the person concerned and be accompanied by an affidavit stating the facts on which the applicant relies and identifying as precisely as possible the documents or categories of documents to which the application relates.

9. There is no material before me to establish that that subrule has been complied with.  In those circumstances, I dismiss the application sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application of the Bidjara People filed 21 March 2012.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.

Associate:

Dated:       23 April 2012