JED (Deceased) v State of Western Australia [2008] FCA 1684

JED (Deceased) v State of Western Australia [2008] FCA 1684

The Court was satisfied that the current applicant could no longer be authorised because the persons comprising it were deceased, that sufficient notice of the authorisation meeting had been given including in relation to both lines of descent from Maggie of Thomas River, that descendants from the queried line attended the meeting, and that the claim group's traditional decision-making process by consensus was followed. The proposed applicant was therefore authorised and could replace the existing applicant under s 66B. The Court was also satisfied that the requirements for amending Form 1 had been met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Native Title Determination Application / Application to Replace the Applicant Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) and to Amend Form 1
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['replacement of Native Title Applicant' 'claim Group Authorisation' 'amendment of Native Title Determination Application' 'authorisation Meeting Notice' 'traditional Decision Making by Consensus']
['native Title' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['replacement of Native Title Applicant' 'claim Group Authorisation' 'amendment of Native Title Determination Application' 'authorisation Meeting Notice' 'traditional Decision Making by Consensus']

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 / Application to Replace the Applicant Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) and to Amend Form 1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the existing applicant should be replaced under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) because the persons comprising the existing applicant had died.' 'Whether the persons comprising the proposed replacement applicant were authorised by the claim group to bring the replacement application and deal with matters arising in relation to it.' 'Whether sufficient notice was given of the claim group authorisation meeting, including to descendants of Ms Lily Bevan.' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of motion and the Form 1 application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the current applicant could no longer be authorised because the persons comprising it were deceased, that sufficient notice of the authorisation meeting had been given including in relation to both lines of descent from Maggie of Thomas River, that descendants from the queried line attended the meeting, and that the claim group's traditional decision-making process by consensus was followed. The proposed applicant was therefore authorised and could replace the existing applicant under s 66B. The Court was also satisfied that the requirements for amending Form 1 had been met.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['The applicant was granted leave to amend its notice of motion to disclose the names of the persons bringing the application to replace the applicant under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), to seek relief under s 66B, and otherwise in accordance with the notice of motion filed on 22 October 2008.' 'The...