Daniel for the Ngaluma People & Monadee for the Injibandi People v State of Western Australia [1999] FCA 686

Daniel for the Ngaluma People & Monadee for the Injibandi People v State of Western Australia [1999] FCA 686

A class or formula description of areas excluded from a native title application may satisfy s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), depending on the applicant’s state of knowledge and whether greater specificity is reasonably feasible. Where validity is contested, a formulaic description is acceptable, but where it is not contested and tenure information is available, more detailed identification of exclusions may be required. The Court stood over the application to allow the applicants to reconsider the appropriateness and adequacy of their descriptions in light of this reasoning.

Parties
First Applicants: Daniels and Ors for the Ngaluma People and Monadee and Ors for the Injibandi People; Second Applicants: Valerie Holborow (nee Cosmos) & Ors on behalf of the Yaburara & Mardudhunera People; Third Applicants: Betty Dale & Ors on behalf of the Wong-Goo-Tt-Ooo People; Respondents: State of Western Australia and Ors (including respondent groups)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Claimant Application (native Title) / Interlocutory, Reasons for Judgment on Notice of Motion to Amend
Outcome
Notice of motion to amend dismissed; second notice of motion stood over; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Amendment of Claimant Application, Requirements for Identification of Areas Not Covered by Native Title Application, Application of S 62(2)(a) of the Native Title Act, Class or Formula Approach to Exclusions
Native Title Law Amendment of Claimant Application Requirements for Identification of Areas Not Covered by Native Title Application Application of S 62(2)(a) of the Native Title Act Class or Formula Approach to Exclusions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniels and Ors for the Ngaluma People and Monadee and Ors for the Injibandi People

First Applicants

Valerie Holborow (nee Cosmos) & Ors on behalf of the Yaburara & Mardudhunera People

Second Applicants

Betty Dale & Ors on behalf of the Wong-Goo-Tt-Ooo People

Third Applicants

State of Western Australia and Ors (including respondent groups)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend Claimant Application (native Title) / Interlocutory, Reasons for Judgment on Notice of Motion to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a class or formula description of internal exclusions within a native title claim satisfy s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)?
  2. 2 Must applicants specifically identify areas not covered by a native title application when validity of exclusions is contested?
  3. 3 Is the current practice in the Native Title Tribunal consistent with requirements of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi

A class or formula description of areas excluded from a native title application may satisfy s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), depending on the applicant’s state of knowledge and whether greater specificity is reasonably feasible. Where validity is contested, a formulaic description is acceptable, but where it is not contested and tenure information is available, more detailed identification of exclusions may be required. The Court stood over the application to allow the applicants to reconsider the appropriateness and adequacy of their descriptions in light of this reasoning.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion to amend dismissed; second notice of motion stood over; costs reserved

Orders

  • The first applicants' notice of motion dated 1 April 1999 be dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The first applicants' notice of motion dated 30 April 1999 be stood over until a date to be fixed.