This matter concerned an application by the Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation (Queensland South) seeking to be joined as a party to the proceedings brought by Mr Wharton as representative for the Kooma People, with the State of Queensland responding. This application was dismissed.
Queensland South made an application under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), on behalf of a group of Kooma People. The application was opposed by Mr Wharton, who initiated the proceedings, also on behalf of the Kooma People, in 1996. Queensland South relied on resolutions from a Kooma Traditional Owners Meeting, attended by thirty-four persons. These resolutions expressed the preference for Queensland South to represent the Kooma People, rather than Mr Wharton. Effectively, Queensland South wished to take control of the litigation.
Mr Wharton submitted that notice for the meetings was inadequate and those in attendance can only be considered individuals, rather than a representative group of the Kooma People. Queensland South questioned whether the decision of Munn v State of Queensland [2002] FCA 78 was correct, as it limited Corporations from joining proceedings under s 84(5). They also submitted that joining proceedings were necessary to fulfill their statutory obligations as a representative body.
Drummond J exercised his discretion to dismiss the application. His honour held it was unnecessary to consider whether s 84(5) is limited. He accepted that it was only ‘one faction’ of the total claimant group who wished to remove Mr Wharton. Drummond J noted the lack of evidence to support the notion that the joinder is necessary to enable the Queensland South to fulfill its functions noting that there is no ‘situation that has emerged which would impede the Corporation from performing its statutory functions if it is not able to be joined as a respondent party’ [18]. Rather, his honour considered that acting on behalf of one part of the total claimants would impede the body’s functions.