Blackwater Accommodation Village Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2011] FCA 355 (12 April 2011) |
| Category: | Case Law | |
| Date: | 12 April 2011 | |
| Sub Category: | Unopposed Determination |
| Place: | Blackwater |
| State/Country: | Queensland, Australia |
| The determination area is Lot 1 on Survey Plan 235822, which is located in the centre of Blackwater in the Central Highlands region of Queensland. The determination area covers approximately 14 hectares. |
| |
| Legal Status: | Federal Court File No. QUD250/2010; Tribunal File No. QN10/1. | |
| Legal Reference: | Registered on the National Native Title Tribunal Register | |
| URL: | http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/355.html | |
| Summary Information: | |
| Blackwater Accommodation Village Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2011] FCA 355 (12 April 2011)
Between: Blackwater Accommodation Village Pty Ltd (APPLICANT) and State Of Queensland (RESPONDENT)
Judge:Collier J
Where: Brisbane
This is an unopposed determination and non-claimant application under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Determination:Native Title does not exist in the determination area. |
| Detailed Information: | |
| The non-claimant application was made by Blackwater Accommodation Village (the applicant), who sought a determination that native title did not exist in the determination area. The applicant made this application because it had sought a term lease from the Queensland Government for its accommodation facility in Blacktown. The applicant was advised by the Queensland Government that it would be awarded the lease if it satisfied requirements regarding any potential native title claims in the area.
The court heard evidence that all relevant notices were provided, that there were no active native title applications over the land, and that there had been no determination of native title over the land. Three previous claimant applications over the determination area – being those of the East Comet/West Dawson People, the Kangoulu People and the Ghungalu People – were dismissed in 2008 and 2009 respectively.
The Court found that:
- there was no evidence before the Court of any native title interests in the land;
- the provisions of the Native Title Act have been complied with by the applicant;
- relevant searches to establish whether a claim existed had been undertaken;
- no assertion of rights have been made by native title claimants;
- that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application and make the orders sought.
Accordingly, the court determined that the non-claimant application met the requirements prescribed in s 86G(1), and thus held that native title did not exists in the determination area.
As a consequence, the determination area will become protected under s 24FA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and acts of extinguishment within the area will become valid. | |
