Jagot J
This case concerns an application by the Wongkumara People to have the Palpamudramudra Yandrawandra native title claim (PY claim) struck out on multiple grounds including abuse of process, prejudice to the Wongkumara applicants and grounds which depend on disputed questions of fact such as whether the PY applicants are a sub-group of a broader traditional society incapable of claiming native title for themselves alone.
The PY claim include an area which overlapped an area of land subject to the Wongkumara native title claim. The Wongkumara applicants were joined as respondents to the PY claim and sought an order for summary dimissal.
Jagot J decided that the summary dismissal application must succeed because the PY claim was not authorised as required by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) and this lack of authority could not be overcome by amendment of the PY claim.
Reasoning
Authorisation
The only evidence of authorisation of the PY claim were minutes of a meeting held on 20 November 2014. Justice Jagot found that it was not possible to discern the identity of the native title claim group from the contents of the minutes. Motion 1 merely confirmed that the people present at the meeting are representatives (meaning descendants) of three sets of named ancestors and “any descendant of the other Palpamudramudra people” together with other discrepancies in the minutes concerning who were members of the native title claim group.
Justice Jagot concluded that ‘the claim is not made by a native title claim group because nothing enables such a group to be identified’ and it was not in the interests of justice to permit the PY claimant application to proceed given the identity of the native title claim group itself which remains indeterminate. The Court was satisfied that the PY claim must be dismissed.
Notification
Justice Jagot found that the notification of the initial claim group meeting was also adequate. A copy of the notice had been sent to as many people as one of the applicants could identify as relevant, stating, "Persons who hold or may hold native title in relation to the lands and waters in the claim area as depicted in the map set out below.”
Justice Jagot found that the notice did not provide any information about the criteria for membership of the group, assumed any recipient would know if they hold or may hold native title based purely on the contents of the map and was incapable of informing any reader whether they might be a member of the proposed Palpamudramudra native title claim group.
Justice Jagot concluded that the meeting notification did not comply with ss 61(1) and (4) of the NTA and that non-compliance was incapable of rectification.
Based on these reasons the proceedings were summarily dismissed under s 84C of the NTA.