Sambo v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 954

Sambo v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 954

The claimant application had failed the registration test twice, the applicant had not sought reconsideration or review within time, and the preconditions in s 190F(5) were met. Although the mapping deficiency under s 190B(2) was likely capable of amendment, the applicant failed, despite an adjournment and orders to file a minute of further amended application and supporting affidavit, to provide materials showing that the substantial deficiencies in the factual basis under s 190B(5), and consequential deficiencies under s 190B(6), s 190B(7) and s 190C(4), were likely to be remedied. There was no other reason why the application should not be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Native Title Claimant Application / Court's Own Motion Whether to Dismiss the Claimant Application Under S 190 F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) After Refusal of Registration by a Delegate of the Native Title Registrar
Outcome
Claimant application dismissed pursuant to s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['registration of Native Title Claims' 'dismissal Under S 190 F(6)' 'registration Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'factual Basis for Claimed Native Title' 'authorisation and Certification']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['registration of Native Title Claims' 'dismissal Under S 190 F(6)' 'registration Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'factual Basis for Claimed Native Title' 'authorisation and Certification']

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 Claimant Application / Court's Own Motion Whether to Dismiss the Claimant Application Under S 190 F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) After Refusal of Registration by a Delegate of the Native Title Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a further adjournment should be granted to allow the applicant to file further materials.' 'Whether the Court was obliged to ensure the applicant was aware in advance of the particular elements of the application to be scrutinised on the motion to dismiss.' 'Whether the application was likely to be amended in a way that would lead to a different outcome once considered by the Registrar for s 190F(6)(a).' 'Whether there was any other reason why the application should not be dismissed for s 190F(6)(b).']

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant application had failed the registration test twice, the applicant had not sought reconsideration or review within time, and the preconditions in s 190F(5) were met. Although the mapping deficiency under s 190B(2) was likely capable of amendment, the applicant failed, despite an adjournment and orders to file a minute of further amended application and supporting affidavit, to provide materials showing that the substantial deficiencies in the factual basis under s 190B(5), and consequential deficiencies under s 190B(6), s 190B(7) and s 190C(4), were likely to be remedied. There was no other reason why the application should not be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claimant application dismissed pursuant to s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The claimant application in WAD 420 of 2013 be dismissed pursuant to s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).']