Reeves J
In this matter, Reeves J made three orders sought by the Applicant, the Bigambul People. The applications were the latest in a series of interlocutory applications directed at the composition of the Bigambul Native Title Claim Group. This case followed earlier contested applications considered in Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 746 (Bigambul No 2).
In this matter, Reeves J made the following orders:
leave to further amend the description of the Bigambul claim group in an application filed on 8 May 2014;
an order that 4 people replace the current Bigambul Applicant; and
an order for leave to further amend the Bigambul Application filed 8 May 2014 to exclude certain areas from the claim area.
Order 1
Reeves J provided the following reasons for granting leave to amend the description of the Bigambul claim group:
fair notice was given of the business to be dealt with at the meeting (applying the common law test set out in Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland [2013] FCA 255 at [41]).
the notice was widely circulated as it was published in a newspaper and periodical which have wide regional circulation. The number of people attending supported this conclusion.
the information provided at the meetings was sufficiently detailed and comprehensive.
Order 2
Reeves J provided the following reasons for making the order for the new Applicant:
his Honour did not accept the submissions by QSNTS that the notice for the meeting to decide on the replacement of the three members of the Bigambul Applicant was defective.
his Honour found no evidence that any member of the Bigambul claim group was unaware that this item of business was to be considered at the meetings.
the item was passed at the second meeting by 87 votes to 47.
the replacement Applicant was properly authorised by the Bigambul claim group.
Order 3
His Honour provided the following reasons for giving the order for leave to amend the application to exclude certain areas from the claim area:
none of the parties who sought to be heard on these applications opposed the making of the order.
the notice for the meetings clearly identified the relevant areas to be excluded as an item of business.
two resolutions relating to the matter were passed with nobody voting against, which further evidenced a properly informed decision.