This case was for a continuation of an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, preventing them from entering Qeqetovoru Land and carrying out logging operations.

The Defendant has a timber licence to carry out logging in the customary lands mentioned above. The Plaintiff argues that he is the true customary landowner of the land in question and at no time was he consulted or aware of the meetings held by the Area Council (as required under the Forest and Timber Act).

The plaintiff further argues that there had been negligence involved in the way the Area Council conducted the hearings, fraud on the behalf of the other defendants in claiming to be customary owners and that there has been a trespass on the land as subsequently the timber licence should be revoked.

The Court examined the claim to rule out frivolous or vexatious litigation. After examining affidavits of evidence the Court held that the plaintiff was in fact a chief of the Qeqetovoru tribe, information which was omitted in the affidavits of the other defendants. As chief, Sotovae an important question was deemed to be raised as to why he was not aware of the hearings conducted by the Area Council and why he was not included in the signing of the Timber Rights Agreement/licence.

The court then considered whether damages would be an adequate remedy to compensate the plaintiff for any loss suffered. The court admitted that ‘the damages that may be caused to the land, forests, streams, rivers and wildlife could not be adequately compensated for in monetary terms.’ On the balance of convenience the Court held that the injunction should be continued. The plaintiff’s potential damage if logging were to begin would be irreversible, however the loss suffered by the company could be made up for with damages.

Held- the Court decided to continue the injunction.

(Summary provided by Eva Sheppard from the Queensland University of Technology)