Central West Goldfields People v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 467

Central West Goldfields People v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 467

Dorothy Dimer could be removed as one of the named joint applicants under Order 6 rule 9(b) because she was a party, no longer wished to remain one of the named applicants, and it was no longer necessary or proper to force her to remain a party. The further orders excluding her, her descendants, and her ancestor from the claim or claim group were refused because her own intended exclusion from the claim group was not sufficiently clear and the removal of her descendants or the apical ancestor could affect other members of the native title claim group without evidence of their consent or proper authorisation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Native Title Determination Application; Interlocutory Notice of Motion / Motion Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Dorothy Dimer was ordered to cease to be an applicant; the motion was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['removal of Joint Applicant' 'registered Native Title Claimant' 'native Title Claim Group Membership' 'authorisation' 'federal Court Rules']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['removal of Joint Applicant' 'registered Native Title Claimant' 'native Title Claim Group Membership' 'authorisation' 'federal Court Rules']

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 Determination Application; Interlocutory Notice of Motion / Motion Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power to order that one of several joint applicants cease to be an applicant in a native title determination application.' 'Whether Dorothy Dimer should be removed as one of the named joint applicants.' 'Whether the Court should order the exclusion of Dorothy Dimer, her descendants, and her named ancestor from the native title determination application or native title claim group.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dorothy Dimer could be removed as one of the named joint applicants under Order 6 rule 9(b) because she was a party, no longer wished to remain one of the named applicants, and it was no longer necessary or proper to force her to remain a party. The further orders excluding her, her descendants, and her ancestor from the claim or claim group were refused because her own intended exclusion from the claim group was not sufficiently clear and the removal of her descendants or the apical ancestor could affect other members of the native title claim group without evidence of their consent or proper authorisation.

Court Disposition

Dorothy Dimer was ordered to cease to be an applicant; the motion was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dorothy Dimer, one of the eight persons named in this application as being "the applicant" pursuant to s 61(2)(a) and (c) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), forthwith cease to be an applicant in this application.' 'The motion, notice of which was filed on 30 January 2003, be otherwise dismissed.']