Noble v Mundraby, Murgha, Harris and Garling [2005] FCAFC 212

Noble v Mundraby, Murgha, Harris and Garling [2005] FCAFC 212

The evidence of the 6 October 2004 meeting supported the primary judge's finding that the native title claim group agreed to and adopted a vote of all members present as the decision-making process for authorising replacement of Mr Noble. The unanimous motions provided evidence that the requirements of s 251B(b) were satisfied, and s 251B did not require proof of any broader or pre-existing decision-making system. Mr Noble therefore had no sufficient prospect of success on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Native Title / Application for Leave to Appeal, or Alternatively Appeal, From an Order Under S 66 B(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) Replacing the Applicant in a Native Title Claim
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused if required; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['authorisation of Native Title Claim Group Applicant' 'replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B' 'decision Making Process Under S 251 B' 'leave to Appeal']
['native Title' 'administrative Law'] ['authorisation of Native Title Claim Group Applicant' 'replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B' 'decision Making Process Under S 251 B' 'leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Native Title / Application for Leave to Appeal, or Alternatively Appeal, From an Order Under S 66 B(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) Replacing the Applicant in a Native Title Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to apply s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) correctly when deciding that the replacement applicant was authorised.' 'Whether authorisation had to be by all members of the native title claim group rather than by a sub-group such as the Gunggandji People or a family group.' 'Whether s 251B requires proof of a system of decision-making beyond the process used for the particular decision.' "Whether, if leave to appeal was required, the primary judge's decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant appellate reconsideration."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the 6 October 2004 meeting supported the primary judge's finding that the native title claim group agreed to and adopted a vote of all members present as the decision-making process for authorising replacement of Mr Noble. The unanimous motions provided evidence that the requirements of s 251B(b) were satisfied, and s 251B did not require proof of any broader or pre-existing decision-making system. Mr Noble therefore had no sufficient prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused if required; otherwise appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['If leave to appeal the order of Spender J, made on 16 December 2004, is required, such leave be refused.' 'If leave to appeal the order of Spender J, made on 16 December 2004, is not required and the appeal be as of right, the appeal be dismissed.']