FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Lampton on behalf of the Juru People v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 1004 Citation: Lampton on behalf of the Juru People v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 1004 Parties: RAYMOND LAMPTON, RAYMOND GASTON, COLLEEN POWER, RAYLENE OUI, TANYA CHATFIELD, IRIS GLENBAR, LENORA ALDRIDGE AND VINCENT MUNDRABY ON BEHALF OF THE JURU PEOPLE v STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS (AS PER SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS) File number: QUD 554 of 2010 Judge: DOWSETT J Date of judgment: 7 July 2014 Date of hearing: 7 July 2014 Place: Darwin Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms H Bowskill with Ms S Phillips Solicitor for the Applicant: North Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation Solicitor for the First Respondent: Crown Law Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Solicitor for Ms Carol Prior: Ms Prior was self-represented IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QUD 554 of 2010 BETWEEN: RAYMOND LAMPTON, RAYMOND GASTON, COLLEEN POWER, RAYLENE OUI, TANYA CHATFIELD, IRIS GLENBAR, LENORA ALDRIDGE AND VINCENT MUNDRABY ON BEHALF OF THE JURU PEOPLE Applicant AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS (AS PER SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS) Respondents JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE OF ORDER: 7 JULY 2014 WHERE MADE: DARWIN THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the interlocutory application filed by Ms Carol Prior on 27 June 2014, be dismissed. 2. The application filed by Carol Prior on 27 June 2014, be refused. 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 554 of 2010 BETWEEN: RAYMOND LAMPTON, RAYMOND GASTON, COLLEEN POWER, RAYLENE OUI, TANYA CHATFIELD, IRIS GLENBAR, LENORA ALDRIDGE AND VINCENT MUNDRABY ON BEHALF OF THE JURU PEOPLE Applicant AND: STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS (AS PER SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS) Respondents JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 7 JULY 2014 PLACE: DARWIN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Ms Carol Prior has, until today, been a member of the applicant group. She is, I have no doubt, a prominent and very active member of the community comprising the claim group. She is a leader within the group, and a person who takes her responsibilities very seriously. Since these proceedings were commenced, one of the named apical ancestors has been Lena Taylor. Ms Prior now asserts that Lena Taylor was not a Juru person, and therefore should not be an apical ancestor. I have no doubt that Ms Prior believes that she should investigate that matter and satisfy herself that Ms Taylor was a Juru person. I have no doubt that Ms Prior's views are honestly held, and that she has only the best interests of the Juru People at heart. However these proceedings have been on foot for some time. They follow successful proceedings by the same claim group in respect of an adjoining area. It is very unfortunate that Ms Prior should now seek to oppose a consent determination which includes Ms Taylor as an apical ancestor. 2 The time for raising this matter has long since passed. To be fair to Ms Prior, she asserts, and I accept that she believes, that she was misled, intentionally or unintentionally, into believing that the question of Ms Taylor's status could be resolved, and should be resolved after any consent determination. In those circumstances, she now seeks to be joined as a respondent in order to conduct further investigations to determine whether or not she should continue in her opposition to the consent determination. 3 Whilst I accept that she may have understood that the matter would be sorted out at a later stage, there is a point at which litigation – even native title litigation – must be brought to an end. Furthermore, the claim group has resolved that Ms Taylor is an apical ancestor. I cannot simply ignore the view of the claim group. Had Ms Prior raised this matter at an earlier stage and sought to prosecute it as she now does, then I may have been willing to join her as a respondent. However, her application comes too late. Further, as Mr Martinez points out in his affidavit, at a meeting on 21 February this year, when the description of the claim group was under consideration, she said nothing. She has, from time to time, raised the matter in the past, but she has evidently not had any impact on the other members of the claim group, other members of the applicant group or the solicitors conducting the matter. Her delay in seeking to be joined in order to oppose a proposed consent determination (which includes Ms Taylor as an apical ancestor) is too late. I therefore refuse her application to be joined. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 15 September 2014 SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS STATE OF QUEENSLAND First Respondent COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent WHITSUNDAY REGIONAL COUNCIL Third Respondent BURDEKIN SHIRE COUNCIL Fourth Respondent ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED Fifth Respondent PAUL CURTEIS, MELLASANNE GRAY, NOEL GRAY, KAREN QUADRELL, MATT QUADRELL, NATHAN RYNN, TRAVIS RYNN, GFB DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD Sixth Respondent ENERGY MINERALS PTY LTD Seventh Respondent AURIZON NETWORK PTY LTD, AURIZON PROPERTY PTY LTD Eighth Respondent HANCOCK COAL INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD Ninth Respondent TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Tenth Respondent LONDA CAMERON DAHL, PETER LEONARD DAHL, SCOTT JOSEPH JONES, SONIA ANNE JONES, STEVEN JOHN NORMAN, LESLIE JOHN PAYNE, LEONIE GALE PHILIPSON, NEVILLE JOHN PHILIPSON, ELDA RONCATO, PAUL RONCATO, DALE KELVIN SIBSON, KELVIN ROY SIBSON, LYNETTE ESTELLE SIBSON, CRAIG LYNTON WIGHT, MARK LYNTON WIGHT, RACHEL GAY WIGHT, ROBERT LYNTON WIGHT, JOHN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, MERRILYN JEAN WILLIAMS Eleventh Respondent CHRISTINE ANNE BENVENUTI, PAUL RAYMOND BENVENUTI Twelfth Respondent