Gilmour J
In this matter, the Court ordered that two applications for the determination of native title over areas in the Kimberley region in Western Australia filed on behalf of the Jurnall Gidja native title claimants (‘the applicants’) be dismissed under s 190F(6) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’).
Background
At a directions hearing on 15 March 2011, there was no appearance for the applicant in relation to either application. At this time, the Court made orders that the applicants file and serve submissions to show cause why the application should not be dismissed pursuant to s 190F(6) of the NTA, and adjourned the proceedings. The legal representative for the applicants filed submissions for both applications referring to difficulties in obtaining instructions.
At a directions hearing on 5 September 2011, the legal representative for the applicants sought orders for both applications to be referred to mediation. No other party supported this course and the Court again invited the parties to make submissions in relation to dismissing the matter per s 190F(6) of the NTA.
The applicants failed to make submissions in accordance with the Court order, and on 12 March 2012 at a further directions hearing, the legal representative for the applicants filed a notice of solicitor ceasing to act. On the same day, via email, Desert Management Pty Ltd, purporting to act as the applicants’ agent, requested 4 months to obtain solicitors for the applicants. The Court did not accept that the applicants had appointed Desert Management Pty Ltd to act as their agent, pursuant to s 84B of the NTA, noting that no evidence had been provided to that effect and that the purported agents failed to appear at that directions hearing.
Decision
The Court was satisfied that: the conditions in s 190B of the NTA were not satisfied; the applicants had not taken any steps to amend the applications over a considerable period of time; the avenues for reconsideration and review of the decision of the Native Title Registrar had been exhausted; and there was no other reason why each application for determination of native title should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court dismissed both applications per s 190F(6) of the NTA.