A summary of the background to the filing of the two interlocutory applications
8 It is necessary to set out briefly the background to the Yamatji Nation claim and also to the filing of these two applications. Some important features of the relevant chronology will become "Attachment A" to these reasons when they are published. The chronology is based on the evidence that has been adduced on the two applications and it should be treated as forming part of my findings of fact in both applications.
9 Firstly, it is necessary to explain the background to the Yamatji Nation claim, which is listed for consent determination tomorrow. I will do so as briefly as I can. The Yamatji Nation claim is of fairly recent origin, but the claims of connection to the country it covers by those who now comprise the Yamatji Nation claim group are not recent, with some of what I might call the "underlying claims" having been filed in this Court in the late 1990s: the Mullewa Wadjari claim was filed in 1996, the Widi Mob claim was filed in 1997, and the Naaguja Peoples' claim was filed in 1998. The Hutt River claim was filed in 2000 and the Amangu People claim in 2004. In April 2017, the Amangu People and the Naaguja Peoples' claims were combined and were renamed the "Southern Yamatji" claim.
10 For present purposes, the key fact to bear in mind is that Aboriginal people in this area have had claims for recognition of their native title rights on foot in this Court since 1996. That is more than 20 years ago. They have already waited too long for finality. No litigant should have to wait more than 20 years for an outcome. Some finality, arising from a long and complex negotiation, is scheduled for tomorrow. It is a very large matter, very large, for Mr Lawson to ask the Court to deprive the people of all those claim groups of that finality, and to make them wait for a further undefined period of time and to continue to be uncertain about the outcome of their claims. As I explain later, it is also a very large matter for Mr Lawson to ask all those with other proprietary interests in the Yamatji Nation claim areas to also wait.
11 The key and more recent turning point in the progress of these claims occurred in November 2015, with some orders made by Justice Barker. At that stage there were five proceedings on foot, with significant overlaps in the country which was the subject of those claims. In his reasons, Barker J spoke of the "difficult relationship" to that point between the State and the claimants: see Leedham Papertalk on behalf of the Mullewa Wadjari People v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 1342 at [4]. Orders were made for mediation to allow the claimants to attempt to resolve their overlapping claims to an area referred to as the "separate proceeding area", and then for the claimants to put forward a proposal to the State to resolve the proceedings in the separate proceeding area by agreement. Otherwise, Barker J made it clear that there would need to be a trial: in part, because the State had applied for a trial to obtain some certainty for all the proprietary interest holders over what on any view is a very large area.
12 His Honour also emphasised how much of the country covered by the claims that any native title existed was likely to have been extinguished. In other words, even if the claim groups could prove connection as the Native Title Act requires, his Honour observed that there will have been grants of other proprietary interests which could, under Australian law, likely extinguish native title, and the claimants may not get native title to any of those areas recognised.
13 His Honour said (at [9]):
… there will be relatively little land available for claim under the NTA. This is recognised by most, if not all, of the claimants, and at least their advisors.
14 This all occurred, I emphasise, in November 2015. More than four years ago, and more than 15 years after four of those claims had been filed. The reality facing the claim groups in the then five proceedings, which Barker J made clear in 2015, is that most of their native title was likely to have been extinguished.
15 That is why, as Barker J also acknowledged, most, if not all, of the claimants appreciated - in 2015 - that:
… it could be to their combined advantage to complete an early identification of just what land is actually available for claim under the NTA and then to consider approaching the State with a view to exploring constructive negotiations with the State as to settlements that might be made alternative to a determination that native title exists or does not exist.
16 After the November 2015 orders, there were lengthy negotiations between the five native title claim groups, and mediation conducted by Judicial Registrar Daniel on behalf of the Court to resolve the overlapping claims. That occurred between February 2016 and March 2017. By March 2017, all outstanding overlaps were resolved with considerable efforts and a great deal of time, resources and dedication. As I have noted, in April 2017, claims by the Amangu People and the Naaguja Peoples were combined and renamed "Southern Yamatji".
17 About six months before this, a set of proposals for resolution of the claims was formulated by the authorised representatives of the claim groups and mediation with the State around those proposals commenced in January 2017. The mediation continued for the first half of 2017, until 31 August 2017 when the State made a formal offer to enter into negotiations towards a non-litigated resolution of the (then) four claimant applications over the separate proceeding area: Mullewa Wadjari, Widi Mob, Hutt River and Southern Yamatji. The offer to enter into negotiations was accepted by the four native title claim groups on 19 October 2017 and the first mediation meeting with the State took place in Geraldton on 14 and 15 November 2017.
18 It was around this time - that is, in November 2017 - that Mr Lawson began expressing his opinions to the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) and to the lawyers representing the claim groups, about who he said were the right people for some of the country which was the subject of these claims. Most of Mr Lawson's concerns centred on the country being claimed under the Widi Mob claim.
19 Let me emphasise that again: the evidence shows that Mr Trees from YMAC asked Mr Pagsanjan, the lawyer for the Widi Mob claim, to speak to Mr Lawson about his concerns in November 2017. The evidence shows Mr Pagsanjan did that. That is more than two years ago.
20 It was around this time - in late 2017 - that a 12 member Traditional Owner Negotiation Team was established as a cornerstone of the negotiation process with the State. A great deal of anthropological research was commissioned, undertaken and completed. Many reports have been prepared, primarily by Dr John Morton. It was as a result of that research that in mid-2019 the claimants determined it was appropriate to lodge an overarching claim covering the whole of the separate proceeding area, which the State did not oppose. The Yamatji Nation claim was authorised on 24 June 2019 and was filed on 28 June 2019, and that is the application which is the subject of the Court's proposed native title determination hearing tomorrow. The evidence established that Mr Lawson and other members of the applicant in the Badimaya Barna Guda native title application were involved in this authorisation process and I return to this matter later in these reasons.
21 It is also not disputed that the term "Yamatji", as used in the Yamatji Nation application, covers a range of people and groups who continue to identify as Amangu, Badimaya, Wilinyu, Naanhagardi, Naaguja, Nanda, Mullewa Wadjari, Wajarri, Wattandee, Widi and Wilinyu.
22 Again, in the negotiations with the State a tremendous amount of time and resources have been applied. As Mr Taylor's evidence makes clear, negotiations have not been easy, especially for the Traditional Owner Negotiation Team and the claim group members. In such circumstances it is almost never the case that every single person in a claim group may agree with an outcome which is negotiated. It is clear Mr Lawson does not agree. As far as the law is concerned, however, disagreement with an outcome, however genuine and heartfelt, would not be enough to put off the culmination of negotiations which is scheduled to occur tomorrow.
23 At meetings held on 8 and 9 December 2019 in Geraldton, concurrently with the authorisation of the Yamatji Nation ILUA, the Yamatji Nation native title claim group considered and confirmed the authorisation of the Yamatji Nation applicant to enter into the Yamatji Nation consent determination. The evidence shows that Mr Lawson did not attend that meeting, but two other members of the Badimaya Barna Guda applicant, Ms Yvonne Lawson and Mr Godfrey Simpson, did attend. Mr Lawson's evidence is that Godfrey Simpson and his nephew William Little "tried to speak about Badimaya people and our claim but they were shut down at the meeting".
24 In the circumstances of this hearing, even if that evidence is accepted, it is not possible to make a finding about precisely what that means and whether, for example, public statements were made or whether there were discussions in smaller groups at the authorisation meeting, which went no further. There is no direct evidence from Mr Godfrey Simpson about this. Obviously, since he chose not to attend, Mr Lawson also did not speak up at that meeting against the resolutions proposed about the ILUA and the consent determination.
25 What is clear, I find, is that neither the Yamatji Nation claim group members nor their lawyers were told at this meeting that preparations for the filing of an inconsistent and rival native title claim over part of the land covered by the Yamatji Nation claim and proposed to be covered by the ILUA and the consent determination were underway, and had been in the process of preparation since October 2019.
26 If Mr Lawson and those who supported him genuinely wished to do no more than negotiate modifications to the ILUA and the consent determination which might give greater or different recognition to the Badimaya People, then - even at that late stage in December 2019 - attending the authorisation meeting, informing everyone about their proposed claim and confronting their extended families and fellow claimants would have been a reasonable and appropriate thing to do.
27 However, I am not persuaded that that was all they wanted.
28 After 9 December 2019, planning began in earnest for the consent determination and the signing of the ILUA, which is scheduled to occur tomorrow. Although, as I have noted, the date had been set since around September 2019.
29 I turn now to describe how Mr Lawson came to lodge the Badimaya Barna Guda application. It has been clear in case management and in the evidence that Mr Lawson is the driving force behind this new claim, and Ms Lawson and Mr Simpson are supporting him. I accept their support is genuine.
30 The Badimaya Barna Guda native title application was filed on 20 January 2020. The persons jointly comprising the applicant are Adrian Lawson, Yvonne Lawson and Godfrey Simpson. The Badimaya Barna Guda claim comprises two separate parcels of land. In between them is the area of land over which Barker J made, after a long trial, a determination that no native title exists, contrary to the claims of the Badimia People. That decision was given in 2015: CG (Deceased) on behalf of the Badimia People v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 204 (Badimia #1); CG (Deceased) on behalf of the Badimia People v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2015] FCA 507 (Badimia #2). An appeal from Barker J's decision was dismissed in 2016: see CG (Deceased) on behalf of the Badimia People v State of Western Australia [2016] FCAFC 67; 240 FCR 466.
31 Pausing there, whether the Badimaya Barna Guda claim is an abuse of process because it seeks to re-litigate issues determined conclusively by Barker J is not an argument I am dealing with today. However, it is relevant to note that this litigation concluded in 2016. It would appear from his affidavit that Mr Lawson at least attended some of the on country evidence in around 2013 and some of his family gave evidence and were involved in that proceeding. In particular, his brother Percy appears from Mr Lawson's evidence to have been involved, and was also involved in establishing a Badimaya corporation in around 2017, in which Mr Lawson also became involved.
32 However, the country now being claimed by the Badimaya Barna Guda claim as Badimaya country was first, not claimed in the 2015 proceeding and second, was not the subject of any follow-up claim by the Badimia People in or after 2016 after the Badimia appeal was dismissed.
33 That is despite some observations by Barker J in his reasons about connections between Badimia and Widi People and despite some evidence to which Barker J referred in his reasons suggesting Badimia country extended further west. Again, no legal action was taken by Mr Lawson or any of those who support him at that time, nor in 2017 when he deposes in his affidavit he first became aware of the Widi Mob proceeding.
34 Returning then to the two parcels of land covered by the 2020 claim, only one of those parcels of land is relevant to the Yamatji Nation claim and to the interlocutory applications, namely, part of the parcel to the west of the Badimia 2015 determined land. That part of the Badimaya Barna Guda application partially but substantially overlaps with the Yamatji Nation claim area and also the claim areas in the Mullewa Wadjari (WAD21/2019), Southern Yamatji (WAD19/2019) and Widi Mob (WAD31/2019) proceedings.
35 At this point it should also be noted that a comparison of the list of apical ancestors in the Yamatji Nation claim on the one hand and the Badimaya Barna Guda claim on the other reveals that there are at least two common apical ancestors on the claim, Biddy/Biddie (the mother of Fred Carnamah) and Timothy Benjamin. There are 29 named sets of apical ancestors in the Yamatji Nation proposed determination and 14 named apical ancestors in the Badimaya Barna Guda claim. The overlap of two apicals is not, in my opinion, especially significant, but what it does indicate is that there is little common ground about who are the right ancestors at the time of effective sovereignty for the country covered by the 2020 claim.
36 The evident impact of the filing of the Badimaya Barna Guda application on the feasibility of maintaining the 7 February 2020 date meant that a case management hearing needed to be convened. On 28 January 2020, the Court convened an urgent case management hearing by teleconference. On that day orders were made listing these two interlocutory applications for hearing today. Given my Full Court commitments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, today was the only available day.
37 The Court also made an order on 28 January joining the Yamatji Nation applicant as a respondent to the Badimaya Barna Guda proceeding. The Yamatji Nation applicant would, in any event, have eventually become a party to this proceeding after the notification period had ended, so the joinder merely brought that joinder forward, as plainly it needed to occur, given the 7 February 2020 determination listing.
38 Other orders that were made reflected the fact, which I have mentioned, that only part of the 2020 Badimaya Barna Guda claim overlaps with the Yamatji Nation claim. There was no basis for the Court to consider as a matter of urgency what should happen to that part of the 2020 Badimaya Barna Guda claim which did not overlap with the Yamatji Nation claim. Accordingly, the Court made orders on 28 January 2020 splitting the Badimaya Barna Guda application into two proceedings: Part A, concerning the overlapping land with the Yamatji Nation claim, and Part B, being the remainder of the Badimaya Barna Guda claim.
39 Therefore, it is only the continuation of the Badimaya Barna Guda Part A proceeding which is in issue today. And the only issue is whether that Part A proceeding should be dismissed as an abuse of process on the ground that it has been brought too late, or with unreasonable delay. Thus, only paragraph 2 of the Yamatji Nation interlocutory application is being heard and determined today.
40 The other argument of the Yamatji Nation applicant - that the proceeding is an abuse of process because it seeks to re-litigate what was decided in the Badimia decisions, or because it is doomed to fail because of the Badimia decisions - has been adjourned. If Mr Lawson successfully persuades the Court Part A is not an abuse of process, then the 7 February hearing will need to be adjourned and the Yamatji Nation applicant's argument about the Badimia decisions will have to be dealt with on another date. That issue is complex, and I considered it was not a matter the Court would be able to deal with in the extremely short time available.
41 It was made very clear to Mr Lawson, and to Ms Lawson and Mr Simpson, at the 28 January teleconference (which lasted more than two hours) that the Court needed to be persuaded as to why the Badimaya Barna Guda Part A application was not an abuse of process, because, on its face it came so late and sought to dislodge the 7 February hearing and the four years of work which had led to it. That is why, as I explained to Mr Lawson, he would have to "show cause" today why the Badimaya Barna Guda claim Part A should not be dismissed.
42 I turn now to the Widi Mob interlocutory application.
43 Mr Lawson, the lead applicant in the Badimaya Barna Guda application, was joined as a respondent to the Widi Mob proceeding on 16 October 2019 following his filing of an interlocutory application in which he asserted that the area claimed in the Widi Mob application is, in fact, Badimaya country. The notes to the Court's joinder order relevantly stated:
(1) Adrian Lawson contends he should be joined as a respondent party to the proceeding as he wishes to protect his interest as a Badimia person in what he asserts is Badimia country.
(2) The parties do not object to Adrian Lawson being joined as a respondent party on the basis that Mr Lawson is a descendant of an ancestor in WAD345/2019, Yamatji Nation, which wholly overlaps the proceeding.
44 As the chronology shows, this was not the first time Mr Lawson had sought to be joined to the Widi Mob proceeding. He first filed an interlocutory application seeking to join as a respondent to the Widi Mob proceeding on 5 June 2019. That is more than six months ago. Mr Lawson's interlocutory application and a similar application made by Lionel O'Brien on 27 February 2019 were referred to mediation in orders made in the Widi Mob proceeding on 7 June 2019.
45 Now, this joinder application by Mr Lawson happened just a couple of weeks before the Yamatji Nation authorisation meeting to authorise the Yamatji Nation claim. Mr Lawson and Ms Yvonne Lawson attended that meeting. The evidence indicates the resolution authorising the Yamatji Nation claim was passed by "consensus". That resolution, or one of the resolutions included, as Mr Yarrow submitted, authorisation of the claim group description, which ultimately appears in the Form 1 Yamatji Nation application.
46 To say that a resolution is passed by "consensus" is usually taken to mean that it is passed without any opposition or disagreement from the people present. Again, there is no evidence Mr Lawson spoke up at that meeting against the Yamatji Nation claim, or spoke to the meeting about his opinion that a large part of the country claimed in the Yamatji Nation claim was, in fact, Badimaya country. There is some evidence that all those in the group where Mr Lawson sat voted in favour of the resolutions.
47 The Yamatji Nation claim was filed on 28 June 2019.
48 On 4 July 2019, HWL Ebsworth, a law firm of significant size and reputation, who were acting as independent legal advisors to Mr Lionel O'Brien in relation to his Widi Mob joinder application, wrote to the Widi Mob parties by email. What was said by HWL Ebsworth was also said on behalf of Mr Lawson. There is evidence he had several conversations with the lawyers at HWL Ebsworth that is recorded in some of the exhibits submitted in this proceeding.
49 It appears that the funding for HWL Ebsworth's involvement may well have come from a grant of assistance nominated to be to Mr O'Brien but I have no doubt on the evidence, and I find, that Mr Lawson also received legal advice from HWL Ebsworth. Indeed, in the email written by HWL Ebsworth this is what is said:
We understand that the claim area of the Yamatji Nation Claim overlaps part of the claim area of the Widi Mob Claim. We further understand that as part of any settlement of matters as they concern the SPA there may be an application to amend the claim area of the Widi Mob Claim to remove the overlap with the Yamatji Nation Claim, an application for leave to discontinue the Widi Mob Claim or an order dismissing the Widi Mob Claim. In any case, it is our understanding that the Widi Mob Claim is not likely to be meaningfully progressed now that the Yamatji Nation Claim has been authorised and filed.
As such, please be advised that Mr Lawson is agreeable to having his Application dismissed. This position is prefaced on the fact that Mr Lawson specifically reserves his rights to continue to pursue, including if necessary to re-file his interlocutory application for joinder should the Widi Mob Claim continue to progress in any meaningful way including, if it continues in respect of a reduced claim area, after the settlement of matters as they concern the SPA. Mr Lawson's position is also prefaced on the fact that there be no order as to costs.
50 In other words, and I find, so far as the Widi Mob parties (especially the applicant and the State) and the Yamatji Nation parties (especially the applicant and the State) were concerned, Mr Lawson had accepted the outcome of the authorisation meeting in June. That message was consistent with what the evidence shows was Mr Lawson's attitude at that authorisation meeting.
51 The Court, accordingly, made orders dismissing Mr Lawson's joinder application on 16 July 2019. He did not file a native title application at that point. Nor did he tell any party, or the Court, that he intended to do so.
52 However, he did make an identical joinder application on 20 August 2019. In September, after a case management hearing, he was directed to attend a conference with Judicial Registrar Daniel. Part of the purpose of this was to ensure that Mr Lawson understood what he was now seeking to do was to renew an application he had previously agreed to having dismissed. By this stage, the Court was also making orders for the parties to agree a timetable towards consent determination.
53 Indeed, in September 2019 at the case management hearing, the Court made orders vacating the trial orders made by Barker J. That, as Mr Yarrow submitted, should have been a clear indication to everyone that these proceedings were on a single track, and they were on a track only to a negotiated outcome. I find Mr Lawson was well aware that this was occurring. I find he was well aware of that in September 2019. Still, he did not file his own native title claim. He knew, or should have known, that by that stage the date of 7 February 2020 had been identified as the consent determination date.
54 In mid-October 2019, the parties in Widi Mob agreed to Mr Lawson being joined as a respondent. That agreement was on a specific basis, recalling that at this point, preparations were well underway for the final authorisation of the Yamatji Nation settlement package which included an ILUA and both a positive and negative determination of native title. I find that two members of the Badimaya Barna Guda applicant knew this directly - Ms Lawson and Mr Simpson - because they attended a Yamatji Nation claim group meeting on 7 October 2019, at which majority resolutions were passed endorsing the "in principle" agreement with the State of Western Australia and "Notification, consultation, and decision-making process on 9 December 2019 for the authorisation of an Area ILUA and Minute of Consent Orders for a determination of native title in the Federal Court of Australia". I infer and find, from the close family relationship between Mr Lawson and the other two individuals, and from the fact that Ms Lawson and Mr Simpson are supporting Mr Lawson as the driving force in the Badimaya Barna Guda claim, that Mr Lawson also well knew in early October 2019 that these preparations were well underway.
55 The Widi Mob parties agreed to Mr Lawson's joinder on the specific basis that he wished to protect his interests as a Badimaya person in what he asserts is Badimaya country, while noting that Mr Lawson is a descendant of an ancestor in the Yamatji Nation claim group which wholly overlaps the Widi Mob proceeding. In other words, at a time which was challenging and fast moving in terms of the overall settlement negotiations, the Widi Mob parties agreed to a joinder to protect an interest which I find they saw was already protected because Mr Lawson would, in their eyes, derive the benefit of the Yamatji Nation settlement as a claim group member and would be bound by the decision-making of the Yamatji Nation claim group.
56 The evidence is, and I find, that there are other Yamatji Nation claim group members who identify as Badimaya, not just Mr Lawson, Ms Lawson and Mr Simpson. However, they have not come forward to support the Badimaya Barna Guda claim.
57 Mr Lawson continued to be kept informed of what was happening in the progress of the Yamatji Nation claim and the overall settlement. He was in contact a great deal with Mr Pagsanjan, as the evidence shows. He attended a case management hearing before me on 21 November 2019. He did not say anything. He did not inform the Court or the parties that he was planning to file a separate claim for native title that would affect the finalisation of the Yamatji Nation claim. He sat in Court, saying nothing to alert the Court or the parties while the Court and the parties continued to try to finalise arrangements for a consent determination in early 2020.
58 On the evidence, this was at least a month after he had actively commenced preparation of a native title application with Mr Bassell and Dr Cosgrove. Contact continued between Mr Lawson and Mr Nichole at YMAC and also between Mr Lawson and Mr Pagsanjan. Significantly, the evidence shows that on around 13 December 2019 Mr Nichole from YMAC phoned Mr Lawson to provide an update on the outcome of the authorisation meetings held on 8 and 9 December at Geraldton. Mr Nichole's evidence is that he informed Mr Lawson that the Yamatji Nation claimants authorised the ILUA and the proposed minute of consent determination at that meeting. Mr Nichole's evidence is that Mr Lawson said words to the effect of - and I quote - "Fair enough. That's good for the mob" and indicated that he would attend the consent determination on 7 February 2020.
59 In his affidavit, Mr Lawson denies he said such a thing and deposes that he:
… would not attend the consent determination in Geraldton on 7 February 2020 I do not wish to attend, and I have never planned to attend, as me and my family do not agree with the determination.
60 I accept Mr Nichole's evidence. I find it is more probable than not that Mr Lawson did say something to the effect Mr Nichole deposes, and that he did indicate around 13 December 2019 that he would attend the consent determination. He and his family members had been attending the Yamatji Nation meetings by and large. It is not unusual, and a fact of which I am satisfied the Court can take judicial notice, that claim group members who may not entirely agree with a consent determination may still attend a consent determination hearing and may accept the will of the majority of their family and claim group. That is not improbable.
61 However, I do accept that yesterday, when he swore his affidavit, Mr Lawson may now feel differently. As I find below, in my opinion, Mr Lawson's position has become increasingly oppositional to the Yamatji Nation settlement in fact occurring, but this has occurred only relatively recently, and probably only in December 2019 and January 2020 as he was preparing to file his own claim. While he has, on the evidence, held and expressed opinions about the connection of Badimaya People (or Barimaia or Badimia - it is spelt differently in various places) to land included in the Yamatji Nation claim for some time, I find that until very recently he was not prepared to take what I find he well knew, and knows, now to be a much more significant step of actively affirming a very different and rival claim for native title on behalf of a very different and narrower group of people, which would have the effect of cutting out a large number of people and families who might otherwise derive benefit from the Yamatji Nation claim. This is a divisive move and I find that he well knows that, which at least is part of the reason that it has taken him a long time to take that very significant step of filing a claim.
62 I accept Mr Lawson may now not intend to attend any consent determination hearing. However, Mr Nichole is an officer of this Court and he has sworn to the effect of that conversation. It is an extremely serious matter for an officer of this Court to give false evidence. I find Mr Nichole would not lightly depose to the content of a conversation if he were not sure about it. In my opinion, Mr Nichole's recollection of that conversation is likely to be more reliable than Mr Lawson's, and I find Mr Lawson is probably reasoning backwards from his current very firm opposition to what is proposed to occur tomorrow.
63 Consistently with the impression I have formed of when Mr Lawson's opposition really crystallised, he did not inform the relevant parties that he would not sign the minute of consent determination until two weeks ago. The evidence shows Mr Lawson was told by Mr Pagsanjan on around 12 December 2019 that all respondents to each of the claims and the Yamatji Nation claim would need to sign the minute of consent determination. Mr Lawson does not at this time appear to have formally or informally told any of the lawyers, or any of the Yamatji Nation applicant members, or the Widi Mob applicant members, that he would not sign the minute of consent determination.
64 Around 15 January 2020, Ms Song from the State Solicitor's Office sent Mr Lawson and all other respondents an email attaching the final version of the minute of consent determination and requesting that they sign and return it by 17 January 2020. It may only be a few days difference, but the silence from Mr Lawson again indicates how he was prepared to disrupt the considerable resources being applied by the parties, which he well knew were being applied, to preparations for the consent determination. He did not comply with that deadline.
65 Instead, he waited until 20 January when Ms Song sent a follow-up email inquiring whether he would sign the minute of consent determination or if not, why not. Mr Lawson then replied at 2.12 pm on 20 January 2020, and I quote:
Im not signing has I have lodged a form 1 native title claim over the area where the Yamatji Nation Claim has been filed, cheersAdrian.
66 On the same day the Badimaya Barna Guda application was filed.
67 Just to complete the summary of what has happened up until today, prior to the hearing on 6 February 2020 the Court granted leave to the Widi Mob applicant to appear in the Badimaya Barna Guda proceeding to make submissions to assist the Court in relation to the Yamatji Nation interlocutory application on the basis that consideration of the Badimaya Barna Guda claim is relevant and, as it was eventually conceded in argument, decisive in relation to the outcome of the Widi Mob interlocutory application today.
68 Although the members of the Badimaya Barna Guda applicant were unrepresented at the time of the case management hearing on 28 January, they obtained legal representation for the hearing today, and I have already extended my gratitude to Mr Sheiner and those lawyers assisting him for their representation of Mr Lawson, and I repeat my expression of gratitude.