Edwards v Santos Limited [2011] HCA 8

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

NOELENE MARGARET EDWARDS & ORS PLAINTIFFS

AND

SANTOS LIMITED & ORS DEFENDANTS

Edwards v Santos Limited [2011] HCA 8

30 March 2011

S153/2010

ORDER

1. A writ of certiorari issue directed to the fourth defendant to quash:

(a) the decisions of the Federal Court of Australia made on 18 December 2009 and 17 March 2010 in proceeding QUD 86 of 2009; and

(b) the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court made on 4 June 2010 in proceeding QUD 28 of 2010.

2. Dismiss the application for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the fourth defendant.

3. The first, second and third defendants pay the costs of the plaintiffs in:

(a) the Federal Court of and incidental to the first, second and third defendants' motions for summary dismissal;

(b) the Full Court of the Federal Court; and

(c) this Court.

Representation

J A McCarthy QC with J F Kildea and A L Tokley for the plaintiffs (instructed by Eddy Neumann Lawyers)

B W Walker SC with S B Lloyd SC and S R R Cooper for the first and third defendants (instructed by Blake Dawson Lawyers)

R J Webb QC with H P Bowskill and G J D del Villar for the second defendant (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

Submitting appearance for the fourth defendant

Intervener

S J Gageler SC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth with R G Orr QC and B Lim intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Edwards v Santos Limited

Practice and procedure – Federal Court of Australia – Summary judgment – Applications by defendants to dismiss proceedings summarily under s 31A(2) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – Plaintiffs "registered native title claimant" under s 253 of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("NTA") in respect of certain land – Plaintiffs and first and third defendants negotiating Indigenous Land Use Agreement ("ILUA") under NTA that included land first and third defendants claimed was encumbered by "Authority to Prospect" ("ATP") granted by second defendant under Petroleum Act 1923 (Q) – ATP entitled first and third defendants to apply to Minister for grant of lease of encumbered land for purpose of petroleum exploration – Plaintiffs sought declarations that grant of lease to first and third defendants would not be valid and any lease granted would not be a "pre-existing right-based act" within meaning of s 24IB of NTA – Whether plaintiffs have sufficient interest for grant of declaratory and injunctive relief – Whether questions raised by plaintiffs hypothetical – Whether plaintiffs seeking advisory opinion.