Yurpangath, Thanikwith, Waranggu &Taepadhigi Peoples & Ors v Qld

The applicants, representing the Yurpangath, Thanikwith, Waranggu and Taepadhigi Peoples, sought an interlocutory injunction against the respondent, the State of Queensland. The dispute concerned the proposed development of a mine on land claimed by the applicants. The applicants alleged that the development would interfere with their native title rights and interests, and that the respondent had failed to comply with its procedural obligations under the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth). The application was heard by Brennan J in chambers.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had established a sufficient likelihood of success in their substantive claim to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This required the court to consider whether the applicants had demonstrated a *prima facie* case that their native title rights and interests would be affected by the proposed mining development and whether the respondent had breached its statutory obligations. The court also had to assess the balance of convenience, considering the potential harm to the applicants if the injunction was not granted versus the potential harm to the respondent and third parties if it was.

Brennan J applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. His Honour considered the evidence presented regarding the existence of native title rights and the potential impact of the mining project. The court's reasoning focused on the need to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of the native title claim, particularly in light of the statutory framework designed to protect native title rights.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondent from taking any further steps in relation to the proposed mining development until further order. This decision was based on the finding that the applicants had established a sufficient likelihood of success in their substantive claim and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction to prevent irreparable harm to their native title rights.