Lander v State of South Australia [2016] FCA 307

Lander v State of South Australia [2016] FCA 307

It is not appropriate for dissentient members of the native title claim group, whose interests are already represented by the applicant, to remain as separate respondents in the proceeding absent exceptional circumstances. The Warrens did not establish plausible grounds—by reference to any breach of agreement, special right, distinct connection to land, or oppression—which would warrant their continued participation as respondents. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion under s 84(8) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to remove them as parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Native Title Application / Interlocutory Application for Removal of Parties (respondents) From Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents Raelene Warren and Gregory Warren removed as parties to the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['party Joinder and Removal' 'representation of Native Title Claim Groups' 'section 84 Native Title Act' 'section 62 a Native Title Act' 'standing in Native Title Proceedings']
['native Title'] ['party Joinder and Removal' 'representation of Native Title Claim Groups' 'section 84 Native Title Act' 'section 62 a Native Title Act' 'standing in Native Title Proceedings']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Native Title Application / Interlocutory Application for Removal of Parties (respondents) From Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents who are members of the claim group should remain as parties to the native title application' 'Whether s 84(3) Native Title Act allows such claim group members to be joined or to remain as respondents' 'Whether the interests of the respondents require separate representation from the applicant group']

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate for dissentient members of the native title claim group, whose interests are already represented by the applicant, to remain as separate respondents in the proceeding absent exceptional circumstances. The Warrens did not establish plausible grounds—by reference to any breach of agreement, special right, distinct connection to land, or oppression—which would warrant their continued participation as respondents. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion under s 84(8) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to remove them as parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents Raelene Warren and Gregory Warren removed as parties to the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Raelene Warren and Gregory Warren cease to be respondents to this proceeding and the title to the proceeding is no longer to record them as the Fourth and Fifth Respondents respectively.']