Evans on behalf of the Koara People v The State of Western Australia

Federal Court of Australia|2008-10-13|Before: Gilmour J

The Federal Court dismissed a native title claim by the Koara People after the Native Title Registrar refused to register the application. The applicants took no steps to challenge the Registrar's decision and instructed their representative body not to make any submissions to the Court. The Court found that since there was no prospect of amending the application to achieve a different outcome and no other reason to keep the case alive, it should be dismissed under s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AND: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGNEW PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD RAYMOND WILLIAM ASHWIN EVELYN GILLA AURIONGOLD EXPLORATION PTY LIMITED AUSTWHIM RESOURCES NL WILLIAM PAUL AXFORD PETER DEAN AXFORD FLORA STUART AXFORD BARRICK GOLD OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED COLIN LESLIE BERNHARDT MARILYN ANN BERNHARDT BHP BILLITON NICKEL WEST PTY LTD BHP BILLITON YAKABINDIE NICKEL PTY LTD BHP BILLITON YEELIRRIE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PTY LTD RENE ALCIDE BLAMPAIN BUNN SPRINGS PASTORAL CO PTY LTD WILLIAM JOHN PAUL CAVALLARO ANNA SHERRIE CAVALLARO CAROLE MICHELLE CRAIG MALCOLM RONALD CRAIG CSR READYMIX DALRYMPLE RESOURCES NL ADELE ROSARIE DAY COLVIN DAY DELTA GOLD EXPLORATION PTY LTD ASHLEY WILLIAM DOWDEN JOHN CHARLES DOWDEN FORRESTANIA GOLD NL FORSAYTH NL WINIFRED GENTLE STEVEN RICHARD GRAINGER ROBERT GRAINGER PETER JOHN GRAINGER STEPHEN ANTHONY HARVEY A W JACOBS DAVID DE COURCY LEFROY J M LEFROY DAVID MURRAY MCQUIE LEIGH MURRAY MCQUIE MARGARET ROSE MCQUIE VICTORIA JANE MCQUIE MINARA PASTORAL HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 072 204 061) MURION CATTLE COMPANY NORILSK NICKEL WILDARA NL PLACER (GRANNY SMITH) PTY LTD PLUTONIC (BAXTER) PTY LTD PLUTONIC OPERATIONS LTD WILLIAM SHAY REX SHAY SHIRE OF LAVERTON SHIRE OF LEONORA SHIRE OF MENZIES SIPA EXPLORATION NL SIR SAMUEL MINES NL PAUL ALEXANDER STARICK KELLIE ANNE STARICK TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED WEEBO PASTORAL CO PTY LTD WESTMIN TALC PTY LTD WESTMINCO OIL PTY LTD DALE MARTIN ZADOW

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 13 October 2008 ex tempore reasons were given for dismissing the application. The following are edited reasons.

Background 2 On 30 January 2008 a delegate of the Native Title Registrar decided pursuant to s 190A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act) not to accept the application for registration. 3 It was not submitted nor was there any evidence to suggest that since failing the registration test the Applicant has either applied to the National Native Tribunal pursuant to s 190E(1) of the Native Title Act for reconsideration of the Delegates decision or applied to the Court pursuant to s 190F(1) of the Native Title Act for the review of that decision. 4 In these circumstances the Court of its own motion listed the matter for a directions hearing on 9 April 2008. At that directions hearing the Court directed the parties to file and serve submissions in relation to the disposition of the application pursuant to s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act on or before 7 May 2008. Subsequent to this date and, in light of the Full Court's decision in Gudjala People # 2 v Native Title Registrar [2008] FCAFC 157 delivered on 27 August 2008, parties were invited by the Court to file and serve any further submissions prior to the hearing of the application.

Section 190F(6) - Should the application be dismissed? 5 In deciding whether the application should be dismissed I have considered s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act, which provides as follows: The Court may, either on the application of a party or on its own motion, dismiss the application in which the claim was made … if: (a) the Court is satisfied that the application in issue has not been amended since consideration by the Registrar, and is not likely to be amended in a way that would lead to a different outcome once considered by the Registrar; and (b) in the opinion of the Court, there is no other reason why the application in issue should not be dismissed. 6 There is no evidence, and it was not submitted by any party, that this application is likely to be amended at all, never mind in a way that would lead to a different outcome once considered by the Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal. 7 Insofar as the opinion of the Court is concerned, again there is nothing before the Court as to whether or not there is another reason why the application should not be dismissed. 8 The position of the Applicant is set out in a letter to the registrar of the Court dated 7 May 2008 in which the Court was advised by the representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body for the area, the Goldfields Land and Sea Council which acts for the Applicant in this matter, that it has specific instructions not to make any submissions to the Court. That position remains the case at the time of the hearing of this matter. 9 I am therefore of the view that the application should be dismissed. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.

Associate: Dated: 21 October 2008 Solicitor for the Applicants: Mr P Vincent

Counsel for the State of Western Australia: Mr T Creewel

Solicitor for the State of Western Australia: State Solicitors Office

Counsel for Indigenous Interests: Ms C Tan

Counsel for Pastoral Interests Mr J Steenhof

Counsel for BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd Ms Burwood

Counsel for various mining interests Ms M Watts

Native Title Act 1993(Cth)ss 190A, 190E(1), 190F(1)

Outcomedefendant

Disposition:

Application dismissed

At a glance

Result

Key principles

Issues before the court

Cited legislation

Plain English Summary

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

AI Analysis