Collier J
In this matter the Court considered an urgent interlocutory application by 3 indigenous respondents to the main proceedings seeking to restrain the holding of a meeting regarding authorisation of a proposed amended Jagera People #2 native title claim. The application was dismissed by Justice Collier.
Background
The claim area subject to the Jagera People #2 native title application encompasses land and waters in south-east Queensland, between Brisbane and Toowoomba. 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).
The notice advertising the meeting stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider changes to the claim group description and to make decisions on other matters relating to the native title claim.
The 3 indigenous respondents supported their application by 3 affidavits. Her Honour noted that:
The first deponent objected to the claim being amended on the grounds that the amended claim area would divide certain peoples, exclude certain apical ancestors, the Yugara/Yugarapul People meeting minutes did not agree to the inclusion of certain apical ancestors and a number of elders did not support the authorisation meeting.
The second deponent referred to a meeting regarding the claim and a connection report prepared by Mr Daniel Leo where Mr Leo 'told numerous families that "they did not have to have their higher apical ancestors as it was not important"', Mr Leo did not contact the respondents one by one as they were informed, Mr Leo's engagement is not an independent, unbiased or fair allocation of research funds and a lack of due process characterised the proceedings.
The third deponent objected to the proposed amendment based on the composition of the amended claim group and the amended claim boundary. The third deponent also contended that the connection report was not thorough or accurate.
The Court considered the circumstances which a plaintiff must demonstrate if seeking an injunction:
There is a serious question to be tried; and
The plaintiff is likely to suffer injury that damages cannot remedy; and
The ‘balance of convenience’ (a comparison of factors for and against the granting of the injunction) favours granting an interlocutory injunction.
Justice Collier was not satisfied on the material presented that there was a serious question to be tried as the information presented was slight and involves a complex question about the accuracy of anthropological research and the validity of interests raised for preventing the authorisation meeting from proceeding.
Secondly, her Honour was not satisifed that the applicants are likely to suffer any injury at all if the meeting was to proceed. The meeting itself can provide a forum where the concerns raised by the applicants could be aired.
Finally, her Honour was satisifed that the balance of convenience supported dismissal of the application having considered several factors – the meeting had been arranged for some time, thousands of dollars had been spent advertising the meeting and making arrangements including catering and venue hire, the lateness of the application to restrain the meeting – that tilted the balance of convenience against the applicants. Her Honour also noted that earlier the same day, orders had been made to refer the issues in dispute to mediation, for which each respondent was to serve an expert anthropologist’s report. Justice Collier was satisfied that this would give the applicants further opportunities to address their concerns.
Accordingly, her Honour dismissed the application.
Orders
The interlocutory application filed by Ruth James, Myfanwy Locke and Pearl Sandy on 9 March 2012 is dismissed.