This matter concerned a joinder application filed by three individuals to become respondents in the Quandamooka Coast native title claim. Reeves J dismissed the application.
Submissions
The joinder applicants contended that they acted on behalf of the Gergum/Kirkham/Kercumpan/Gorbenpan/Go’enpul/Yerongpan People. One of the three individuals did not provide evidence to support the application, and failed to respond to the opposing submissions. The others submitted that their heritage gave them a traditional interest in the land and waters, and that this interest would be significantly impacted if the current claim were successful, alleging that the family groups in the claim had no blood connection or traditional claim to the area.
The applicants of the Quandamooka Coast Claim opposed the joinder. They highlighted the lack of evidence from one of the individuals as well as the successful determination of three native title claims made by the Quandamooka People which included the apical ancestor relied on by the joinder applicants. The Quandamooka claimants contended that the joinder applicants in fact assert interest as Quandamooka persons and have not sufficiently proven how their interest is distinguished from the group interest, or else has been particularly ignored or mismanaged by the claimants. It was hence submitted that granting the joinder would frustrate the ability to pursue the claim on the groups’ behalf by giving the individuals a veto ability on group decisions.
Decision
Reeves J deemed that s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) applied to the application. This section requires the tripartite satisfaction of proving an interest, impacted by the proceedings, and that the interest of justice supports the applicant being joined as a party.
Reeves J agreed with the Quandamooka claimants’ submissions. His Honour held that the individual who lacked evidentiary support of her interest could not succeed. The other joinder applicants had an interest in the area and claim as Quandamooka people, but Reeves J held it would be against the interests of justice to allow the application. Given their interest was not proven to be distinct from the claimants, allowing the joinder would comprise effective management of the claim. In further support of dismissing the application, Reeves J noted that the joinder applicants had not explained the persons or group they represent and that respondents cannot act in a representative capacity, rather individuals must file their own application under s 13(1) of the NTA.