FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Yarmirr v The Northern Territory of Australia [2000] FCA 945 Matter No. DG6006 of 1998 MARY YARMIRR & OTHERS v THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA & OTHERS BEAUMONT, von DOUSSA & MERKEL JJ 13 JULY 2000 ADELAIDE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY DG6006 OF 1998 BETWEEN: MARY YARMIRR AND OTHERS Appellants AND: THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent PASPALEY PEARLS Third Respondent FISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL INC Fourth Respondent OCEAN TRAWLER PTY LTD Fifth Respondent SHINE FISHERIES PTY LTD Sixth Respondent MCKAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD Seventh Respondent MS PAVALINA HENWOOD Eighth Respondent ARNHEM LAND ABORIGINAL LAND TRUST Ninth Respondent JUDGE: BEAUMONT, von DOUSSA & MERKEL JJ DATE OF ORDER: 13 JULY 2000 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. On the Notice of Motion filed by the appellants on 22 December 1999 there be no order as to costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY DG6006 OF 1998 BETWEEN: MARY YARMIRR AND OTHERS Appellants AND: THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent PASPALEY PEARLS Third Respondent FISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL INC Fourth Respondent OCEAN TRAWLER PTY LTD Fifth Respondent SHINE FISHERIES PTY LTD Sixth Respondent MCKAILIS GULF FISHERIES PTY LTD Seventh Respondent MS PAVALINA HENWOOD Eighth Respondent ARNHEM LAND ABORIGINAL LAND TRUST Ninth Respondent JUDGE: BEAUMONT, von DOUSSA & MERKEL JJ DATE: 13 JULY 2000 PLACE: ADELAIDE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 After the judgment was handed down by the Full Court in the present matter the appellants applied by Notice of Motion for the reopening of the appeal for the purpose of determining ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal. 2 On 3 February 2000, the Full Court declined to reopen the appeal as requested by the appellants. In the result the Full Court made no order on the Notice of Motion but reserved liberty to any party to apply in writing for any costs of the motion. 3 The Northern Territory of Australia (the Territory) has filed a written submission applying for its costs in connection with the appellants' Notice of Motion. The Territory submitted that costs should follow the event and, as the appellants were unsuccessful on the motion, they should pay any costs incurred by the Territory in connection with it. No other party has sought costs, but the appellants have filed a written submission resisting the Territory's application. 4 As was acknowledged by the Territory the award of costs is in the discretion of the Court. In the present matter the Court declined to make any order for costs of the appeal and the cross appeal after having arrived at the view that all of the parties should bear their own costs. The costs of the motion could not be significant. The motion sought to raise a relatively minor issue that arose in the course of the appeal. In all the circumstances, we are of the view that any costs incurred in respect of the motion should be treated as part of the parties' costs of the appeal and of the cross appeal and should be borne by the parties themselves. Accordingly, we decline to make the order for costs sought by the Territory. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Dated: Counsel for the Appellants: Mr J Basten QC Solicitor for the Appellants: Northern Land Council Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Mr T Pauling QC Solicitor for the 1st Respondent: Solicitor for the Northern Territory Solicitor for the 2nd Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Solicitor for the 3rd to 7th Respondents: Cridlands No appearance for the 8th & 9th Respondents Date of Hearing: 21 January 2000 Date of Judgment: 13 July 2000