Martin (deceased) v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2009] FCA 635

Martin (deceased) v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2009] FCA 635

The claim group described in the original claimant application was identified with reasonable precision, reasonably notified, and given a proper opportunity to participate in the 9 April 2009 meeting. The meeting was orderly, persons entitled to participate did so, non-members did not, participants were advised about s 251B, no mandatory traditional decision-making process was identified, and majority voting was agreed and adopted without dissent. The authorisation was therefore sufficient for s 66B(1)(b). The proposed amendments did not show that the applicants were a subgroup asserting rights of a larger group; the reference to the Widi Mob was a convenient reference to the claim group...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Native Title Determination Claimant Application / Notices of Motion to Replace Deceased Current Applicant Under S 66 B Native Title Act 1993 (cth) and to Amend the Claimant Application
Outcome
Applications allowed; deceased current applicant replaced and claimant application amended.
Legal Topics
['replacement of Deceased Current Applicant' 'authorisation by Native Title Claim Group' 'amendment of Claimant Application' 'claim Group Identification' 'subgroup Claims' 'registration Requirements']
['native Title' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['replacement of Deceased Current Applicant' 'authorisation by Native Title Claim Group' 'amendment of Claimant Application' 'claim Group Identification' 'subgroup Claims' 'registration Requirements']

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 Claimant Application / Notices of Motion to Replace Deceased Current Applicant Under S 66 B Native Title Act 1993 (cth) and to Amend the Claimant Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should be made to replace the deceased current applicant in the native title proceedings.' 'Whether the proposed amendment to the claimant application proposed by the new applicants should be allowed.' 'Whether the proposed applicants were authorised by the claim group under s 66B(1)(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the amended claim would be a claim by a subgroup of a larger community contrary to s 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the amended claim group description in Sch A identified the claimant group with sufficient certainty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claim group described in the original claimant application was identified with reasonable precision, reasonably notified, and given a proper opportunity to participate in the 9 April 2009 meeting. The meeting was orderly, persons entitled to participate did so, non-members did not, participants were advised about s 251B, no mandatory traditional decision-making process was identified, and majority voting was agreed and adopted without dissent. The authorisation was therefore sufficient for s 66B(1)(b). The proposed amendments did not show that the applicants were a subgroup asserting rights of a larger group; the reference to the Widi Mob was a convenient reference to the claim group...

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; deceased current applicant replaced and claimant application amended.

Orders

  • ['Irwin Tasman Lewis, Darryl Noel Woods, Errol Leonard Martin, Julie Lewis, Bill Lewis, Gregory Denis Martin and Gloria May Martin replace the current applicant in these proceedings.' 'The claimant application be amended in terms of the amendments proposed to Sch A, Sch E, Sch F, Sch G, Sch M, Sch O and Sch R as set...