Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Indigenous Law Reporter

Editors --- "Kooma People v State of Queensland - Case Summary" [2002] AUIndigLawRpr 29; (2002) 7(2) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 20

Court and Tribunal Decisions - Australia

Kooma People v State of Queensland

Federal Court of Australia (Drummond J)

26 February 2002

[2002] FCA 86

Native title — joinder of representative body under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — statutory functions of representative body under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — purpose of seeking joinder

Facts:

A native title claim was filed in June 1996 by Mr Wayne Wharton on behalf of the Kooma People (the Claim). The Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation (the Corporation) was not a party. At a meeting of some of the Kooma traditional owners in December 2001, it was resolved that Mr Wayne Wharton be advised that he no longer represents the Kooma People and that the Corporation be instructed to prepare a claim on behalf of the Kooma traditional owners. The Corporation applied for an order joining it as a respondent party to the Claim under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act).

Held:

1. The evidence indicated that the Corporation was seeking joinder in response to a request by one faction within the claimant group to take effective control of the litigation out of the hands of Mr Wharton’s faction, and in effect control the litigation on behalf of the faction that called the December 2001 meeting: [1]-[15]

2. The Corporation has statutory functions to perform in relation to the making and support of native title claims under s 203B of the Act: [17]

3. On the evidence, joinder of the Corporation was not sought to enable the Corporation to properly perform its statutory functions. Far from facilitating the Corporation in performing its functions, joinder may significantly impede the Corporation in performing its functions. The Corporation’s dispute resolution functions under s 203B(F) of the Act would be likely to be put at risk of proper execution because the Corporation was seeking to be joined in order to align itself with but one faction within the claimant group: [21].

4. Because the application was dismissed on discretionary grounds, it was unnecessary to express a view on whether s 84(5) is limited in the manner suggested by Emmett J: [14]-[16]. Munn v State of Queensland [2002] FCA 78 considered.

Order

Notice of motion for an order joining the Corporation as a respondent party to the Claim dismissed.??