Anderson v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1558

Anderson v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1558

The motion could not succeed because the evidence was clearly insufficient to satisfy the requirements of s 66B, particularly proof of withdrawal of authorisation, excess of authority, and authorisation of the ongoing or replacement applicants under s 251B. The motion also purported to be brought by all named...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Native Title Claimant Application / Motion Under S 66 B to Remove and Replace a Named Applicant
Outcome
The motion filed 15 April 2002 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['replacement of Applicant in Claimant Application' 'authorisation by Native Title Claim Group' 'insufficient Evidence' 'adjournment or Dismissal of Motion']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['replacement of Applicant in Claimant Application' 'authorisation by Native Title Claim Group' 'insufficient Evidence' 'adjournment or Dismissal of Motion']

Source-derived case record

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 / Motion Under S 66 B to Remove and Replace a Named Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had established the evidentiary requirements for an order removing Robin Yarran as a named applicant under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).' 'Whether the motion was properly authorised by the native title claim group, including proof under s 251B of withdrawal of authority, excess of authority, and authorisation of the ongoing or replacement applicants.' 'Whether the motion should be further adjourned to permit a community process or dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion could not succeed because the evidence was clearly insufficient to satisfy the requirements of s 66B, particularly proof of withdrawal of authorisation, excess of authority, and authorisation of the ongoing or replacement applicants under s 251B. The motion also purported to be brought by all named applicants, including Mr Yarran, the person sought to be removed, and therefore did not properly identify and establish the authority of the persons bringing it. The motion was dismissed rather than further adjourned, without preventing a fresh motion later.

Court Disposition

The motion filed 15 April 2002 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion filed 15 April 2002 is dismissed.']