//
[2026] FCA 367
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
2026-03-27
Jackson J
Original judgment source is linked above.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and seven (107) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackson.
Forrest on behalf of Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group (Part B)
State of Western Australia
Bates on behalf of the Malyangapa Part B Claim Group v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2021] FCA 1198
Brownley on behalf of the Gulgoordi-Garlgurla Wongi People v State of Western Australia [2024] FCA 208
Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis [1974] HCA 17; (1974) 131 CLR 311
Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588
Crocker v Toys 'R' Us (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 728
Evans on behalf of the Yarla-Gu Bunna Nangatjara People v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 1382
Forrest on behalf of the Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 467
Forrest on behalf of the Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group (Part A) v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 1489
Forrest on behalf of the Nangaanya-ku Native Title Claim Group (Part B) v State of Western Australia [2022] FCA 1356
Fortescue Metals Group v Warrie [2019] FCAFC 177; (2019) 273 FCR 350 3E
GLJ v Trustees of Roman Catholic Church for Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 280 CLR 442
Horvath v Pattison [1999] FCA 924
Hunter v Leahy [1999] FCA 1075; (1999) 91 FCR 214
Jackson v Stirling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612
Lawson on behalf of the Badimaya Barna Guda People v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 104
Madden (Receiver) v Mining Standards International Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 142
UBS AG v Tyne as Trustee of the Argot Trust [2018] HCA 45; (2018) 265 CLR 77
von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd [2005] QCA 109; [2005] 1 Qd R 681
The public interest considerations underlying the power of courts to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process include the necessity of maintaining confidence in, and respect for, the authority of the Courts: Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699 at [69], cited in Dale v State of Western Australia [2011] FCAFC 46; (2011) 191 FCR 521 at [112]. The prospect that inconsistent judgments may bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people is a recognised category of abuse of process: Walton v Gardiner at 393.
- The primary issues in determining whether there is an abuse of process is whether the use of the Court's procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party or bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The touchstones of an abuse of process are use of the court's procedures in a way which would be unjustifiably oppressive or bring the administration of justice into disrepute: Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507 at [25]. As the High Court explained in UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; (2018) 360 ALR 184 at [1]:
(1994) 179 CLR 403
(1974) 131 CLR 311
(2019) 273 FCR 350
(2023) 280 CLR 442
(1999) 91 FCR 214
(1986) 12 FCR 267
(1987) 162 CLR 612
(2018) 265 CLR 77
(1999) 177 CLR 378
(2011) 191 FCR 521
(2015) 256 CLR 507
(2018) 360 ALR 184