Bonner on behalf of the Jagera People #2 v State of Queensland

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an interlocutory application seeking the following order: 1. An injunction to restrain the conduct of the meeting on 10 March 2012 regarding authorisation of the proposed amended QUD 62104 of 2003 Native Title Claim. 2 The applicants to the interlocutory application are Ms Ruth James, Ms Myfanwy Locke, and Ms Pearl Sandy, all of whom are respondents to the substantive native title claim. The Jagera People #2 native title claim encompasses an area of land and waters in south-east Queensland, from the Port of Brisbane in the east, to Murphy's Creek near Toowoomba in the west, and between the Brisbane River and the Logan River systems. 3 An amended Native Title Determination Application ("the Claimant Application") was filed on 2 August 2011. I understand that the Claimant Application was amended following resolution of an overlap dispute between the Jagera People (in respect of this claim) and the Turrbal People (in respect of claim QUD 6196/1998). 4 On or about 7 February 2012 a notice was published in The Courier Mail newspaper in the following form: NOTICE OF JAGERA, YUGGERA AND UGARAPUL ELDERS AND COMMUNITY MEETING 9 am, Saturday 10th March 2012 Lockyer Room, Ipswich Civic CentreAll All persons who are members of the native title claim group in the native title determination application filed in the Federal Court and referred to as Jagera People #2 (QG6014/03) are invited to attend a meeting convened by Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul people. The Jagera People #2 native title claim covers land and waters in south-east Queensland including Ipswich and Gatton. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Consider whether the present Applicant to the Jagera People #2 claim continues to be authorised by the claim group to make the native title claim and to deal with all matters arising in relation to it, or whether a new Applicant should be authorised to replace the existing Applicant to the native title claim; 2. Consider changes to the native title claim group description; and 3. Make decisions on other matters relating to the native title claim. Elders and members of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul peoples should attend the meeting, being the biological descendants of the following people : a. James/Jamie Bell, and in particular, those of his known sons Roger Bell (aka Jung Jung) and Stanley Bell; b. Thomas Anderson (aka Tommy Dugandan) and Emily Harvie/Harvey, and in particular, those of their known son Robert Anderson (aka Goupong); c. Sarah Moreton (aka Dinaba), and in particular, those of her known son Charlie Moreton (aka Mookin); d. Janie of Laidley, and in particular, those of her known daughter Daisy Moreton nee Thompson (aka Muminda); e. Billy Turner, and in particular, those of his known daughter Amy Thompson nee Turner; f. Janey Thompson, and in particular, those of her known son Harry Thompson Snr g. Maggie McCarthy, and in particular, those of her known son Peter Long; h. Topsy of Ipswich, and in particular those of her known son Jimmie Edwards; who identify as and are accepted by other members of the group as members of the group. Date: 9am to 3pm, Saturday 10 March 2012 (refreshments included) Venur: Lockyer Room, Ipswich Civic Centre, cnr Limestone & Nicholas Streets, Ipswich [contact details]

CONSIDERATION 12 In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [19] Gleeson CJ and Crennan J observed that, in circumstances where a plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief, it is necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate that: (a) There is a serious question to be tried as to the plaintiff's entitlement to relief; and (b) The plaintiff is likely to suffer injury for which damages will not be an adequate remedy; and (c) The balance of convenience favours the granting of an interlocutory injunction. 13 In this case I am not satisfied that the applicants have satisfied any of these criteria. 14 First, I am not satisfied on the material before the Court that there is a serious question to be tried as to the applicants' entitlement to relief. In these proceedings an authorisation meeting has properly been called in accordance with s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). While the applicants appear to have concerns as to the description of the native title claim group and the reliability of anthropological research which has been undertaken, no serious case has been advanced to impugn the basis upon which tomorrow's meeting has been called. To paraphrase language used by Greenwood J in respect of a similar applications in Gordon Charlie v Cape York Land Council (No 2) [2006] FCA 1683 and in Wuthathi People No 2 v State of Queensland [2010] FCA 1103 at [8], the material before the Court on which the applicants base their claim that the meeting should not proceed is slight, and involves a complex question as to the veracity of anthropological research and the validity of interests for which the hearing this afternoon - being founded upon general concerns and allegations by the applicants - is neither the time nor the place. 15 Second, I am not satisfied that the applicants are likely to suffer any injury at all if the meeting proceeds tomorrow, much less injury for which damages will not be an adequate remedy. As Mr Yarrow submitted, correctly in my view, the authorisation meeting tomorrow is a continuation of the process of evaluating all interests contemplated by the Jagera People #2 claim. The holding of the meeting does not mean that all anthropological investigation is complete, or that the concerns expressed by the applicants to this proceeding are thereafter to be disregarded. It is clear from the published notice of meeting that the meeting has been convened by not only the Jagera people, but also Yugera and Ugarapul people. The meeting itself can provide a forum for some of the concerns of the applicants to be agitated. 16 Finally, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience favours an order dismissing the interlocutory application. It is clear from the affidavit of Mr Matthew Patterson, the solicitor for the Jagera People #2, that arrangements have been in place since early February 2012 for the meeting of the Jagera, Yuggera and Ugarapul Peoples to occur. Mr Patterson deposes that thousands of dollars have been spent in advertising the meeting and making arrangements such as catering and venue hire. The lateness of the application by the applicants to restrain the meeting taking place, coupled with the serious inconvenience which will ensue to many people should the meeting not occur tilt the balance of convenience against the applicants. 17 Finally, and in any event, I note that his Honour Reeves J this morning made orders in this proceeding, including as follows: 6. The issues in dispute in the matter between the Applicant and the Indigenous Respondents be referred to mediation to be conducted by a Registrar of the Court under section 86B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 7. Each Indigenous Respondent is to serve any expert anthropologist's report upon which it relies on the Applicant and the State on or before 30 April 2012. 8. If an Indigenous Respondent does not serve an expert anthropologist's report, the Respondent shall provide to the Applicant and the State a written response to the Applicant's connection report, including details of those parts of the connection report that are disputed or are agreed, and in respect of those parts that are disputed, the basis of the dispute and the alternative position relied upon by the Respondent, on or before 30 April 2012. 18 From these Orders, the applicants to the interlocutory application will have further opportunities to properly address their concerns within the scope of these proceedings. With respect, in my view these Orders made by his Honour satisfactorily deal with the issues raised by the applicants, and support the submission by the Jagera People #2 that the balance of convenience militates against the order sought this afternoon. 19 The appropriate order is to dismiss the application before me. I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Collier.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (4)