Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corp & Ors v State of Queensland & Ors [1998] FCA 632

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARPENTARIA LAND COUNCIL ABORIGINAL CORPORATION & ors

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ors NG 6002 of 1998 SUMMARY In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some other cases of public interest, Beaumont J has prepared this brief summary to accompany the reasons for judgment, delivered today. It must, of course, be emphasised that the only authoritative pronouncement of the Court's reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the principal conclusions reached by the Court, but is necessarily incomplete.

NG 6002 of 1998 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: CARPENTARIA LAND COUNCIL ABORIGINAL CORPORATION & ors

ApplicantS

AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ors

RespondentS

JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.

DATE: 3 JUNE 1998

PLACE: HEARD IN BRISBANE

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 3 JUNE 1998 In these proceedings the applicants (who include an Aboriginal representative body) challenged a resumption of native title interests for road and bridge works on several grounds. Some of the grounds of the challenge have been upheld; others have been rejected. The applicants claim for declaratory orders that the resumption process was technically invalid has been refused; but the Court has granted an injunction to prevent the road and bridge works, unless the Council is prepared to give an undertaking to the Court that it will negotiate with the Aboriginal representative body in this regard.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Native Title - resumption of native title rights and interests for road and bridge works - whether applicants have a sufficient interest to claim the relief sought - whether notice of acquisition and subsequent Proclamation are invalid - whether notice failed to provide information regarding the Council's willingness to negotiate - whether notice misleading with respect to extinguishment of native title - whether notice failed to identify substantially the land taken - whether the identification of the interests taken was ambiguous and insufficient - whether notice was given for an impermissible private purpose - whether unlawful - whether injunction should lie unless acquiring authority undertakes to negotiate. Native Title Act 1993 - ss 23, 26, 79 Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld) - ss 7, 238 Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) - ss 148, 151 Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 27 - appl. Prentice v Brisbane City Council (1966) Qd.R 394 - cons. Bartrum v Manurewa Borough (1962) N.Z.L.R. 21 - cons. Westminster Corporation v London and North Western Railway [1905] AC 426 - cons. Werribee Council v Kerr (1928) 42 CLR 1 - cons. Scurr v Brisbane City Council (1973) 133 CLR 242 - cons. Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) HCA 28 - appl.