Dowsett J
In this matter, the Court considered an application made on behalf of the Bidjara people (the Applicant) for leave to appeal six interlocutory orders concerning a number of associated native title matters that were listed for trial in 10 days.
Background
The Bidjara native title claim was due to commence on 22 April 2013 after a number of scheduling difficulties. In the lead up to the hearing the Applicant had failed to comply with the court timetable for filing evidence. The trial judge, Justice Jagot, refused the Applicant’s request for a further extension of time and made a number of directions which the Applicant sought leave to challenge.
The specific directions which the Applicant sought to challenge were:
Justice Jagot's refusal to accept certain evidence in the form of dance;
orders giving effect to an agreement between the parties that evidence be provided in written form;
the reasons for refusal to grant a further extension of time to comply with an order concerning the filing of material;
the way in which Justice Jagot expected the trial to be conducted; and
a finding that a witness was not an expert and the evidence to be called was not based on relevant expertise.
Although each of the grounds of appeal were recognised as being important the Court decided not to consider the merits of the appeal so close to the trial of the matter. In considering whether leave should be granted, the Court focused particularly upon the negative effects an interlocutory appeal would have upon the interests of the parties and use of court resources.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the basis that the issues will be better raised on appeal after the final determination of the matter.
Orders
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the costs of the application are to be costs in the cause.