In this case, WG & DK Ryan Pty Ltd successfully sought an application for a determination under s13(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) that native title does not exist in relation to a lot of land located in Springsure, Queensland. WG & DK Ryan were the registered lessee of the land and owned several adjacent parcels in freehold. The declaration was sought in order to convert the lease to freehold. The only respondent to the application, the State of Queensland, did not oppose the application.
Evidence
It was established that there were no previous determinations of native title over the land nor any current applications.
Enquiries were made with Queensland South Native Title Services (QSNTS), which indicated that it was ‘aware of persons who assert they hold native title in the area’, however, no details were provided regarding who, or the nature or content of any such potential claim.
Five historical claims to native title had been made over the land by three different claim groups: the Bidjara People, the Garingbal and Kara Kara People, and the Kangoulu People. Three of the claims were associated with the Bidjara People. The first of these was withdrawn, the second discontinued and the third dismissed. The Garingbal and Kara Kara People’s claim did not pass the registration test under ss 190C(2) and (4) of the NTA and the Kangoulu People’s claim was dismissed.
Decision
The Court held that the question was whether the proposition that native title did not exist had been made out on the balance of probabilities: Mudgee Local Aboriginal Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2013] FCA 668. Regarding QSNTS’ evidence, Her Honour stated that she gave ‘no weight to the bare assertion … particularly in circumstances where there has been no subsequent substantiation of any such possible interest.’ Regarding the historical claims, the Court found that they did not suggest any native title interest in the land, appearing to give particular weight to the fact that none of the groups sought to be joined to the application. The Court was satisfied that it was within its power to make the orders sought, and determined that there was no native title over the lot pursuant s 86G of the NTA.