FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples v State of Queensland
[2001] FCA 464
THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES v STATE OF QUEENSLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300, M G KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395 AND OTHERS
Q 293 OF 1999
FRENCH, MERKEL, DOWSETT JJ
26 APRIL 2001
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
Q 293 OF 1999 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
THE LARDIL, KAIADILT, YANGKAAL and GANGALIDDA PEOPLES APPELLANTS
|
|
AND: |
STATE OF QUEENSLAND FIRST RESPONDENT
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SECOND RESPONDENT
PASMINCO CENTURY MINE LTD ACN 006 670 300 THIRD RESPONDENT
M G KAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD ACN 007 856 395 AND OTHERS FOURTH RESPONDENT TO ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be to be taxed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
Q 293 OF 1999 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
1 When judgment in this matter was delivered the parties were invited to make further submissions as to the appeal against the order for costs made below and as to the costs of the appeal. The Court has now considered the submissions provided by the parties and is of the view that the proceedings before Cooper J were within the jurisdiction conferred by subs 213(2) of the Act and that s 85A does not apply for reasons previously given. The appellants’ submission that his Honour misdirected himself as to the law in observing that “There is no reason why costs should not follow the event” is therefore not able to be made out. That view was fairly open to his Honour, having considered all of the issues, and we see no basis for interfering in the order. The appeal should be dismissed.
2 As to the question of the costs of appeal, we are of the view that they, too, should follow the event. We have considered the submissions advanced by the appellants in favour of a contrary order. The first of these is that the application for, and grant of, the authority occurred without notice to them. While this may be so, we do not see that it justified the appellants in commencing proceedings which misconceived the nature of their position under the Native Title Act. As to the issues arising under State legislation, the fact that his Honour considered that it was not appropriate to determine those matters did not justify the appellants in continuing to urge them on appeal, given that they were without substance.
3 The first, second, third and eleventh respondents appeared on the hearing of the appeal. We do not understand the eleventh respondent to seek any order for costs. We order that the appellants pay the costs of the appeal of the first, second and third respondents, such costs to be taxed.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Court. |
Associate:
Dated: 26 April 2001
|
Counsel for the Appellants: |
Mr Basten QC |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Appellants: |
Andrew Chalk Associates |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First Respondent: |
Mr Gibson QC Mr McLeod |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent: |
Crown Law |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Second Respondent: |
Mr Orr QC |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Third Respondent: |
Mr Fraser QC Mr D O’Brien |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Third Respondent: |
Blake Dawson Waldron |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Eleventh Respondent: |
Mr Hiley QC |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Eleventh Respondent: |
Gore & Associates |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
17 May 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
26 April 2001 |
