Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 746

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 746 Citation: Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 746

Parties: RUSSELL DOCTOR & ORS ON BEHALF OF THE BIGAMBUL PEOPLE v STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS

File number: QUD 101 of 2009

Judge: REEVES J

Date of judgment: 30 July 2013

Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – competing applications to amend the composition of the native title claim group by amending the native title determination application – where first application filed by faction of the claim group – where application by faction also seeks to replace the applicant under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – where application based on one meeting that passed resolutions to: remove one apical ancestor from the description of the claim group and to replace the current applicant – whether notice of the meeting gave fair notice of the business to be considered at the meeting – where notice of meeting did not state which apical ancestor was to be removed from the claim group description – where background to meeting clearly demonstrated that the purpose of the meeting was to remove the descendants of one specific apical ancestor from the claim group NATIVE TITLE – competing applications to amend the composition of the native title claim group by amending the native title determination application – where second application filed by authorised applicant – where application based on two meetings – consideration of two-step process for amending the composition of a native title claim group – whether notices at each meeting gave fair notice of the business to be considered at the meeting – where first meeting resolved to concurrently remove one apical ancestor and add others – where notice of the first meeting did not state that an amendment of the claim group description would involve the removal of any apical ancestors – where concession made that notice of first meeting inadequate – where first meeting was the first step of a two-step process to amend the composition of the claim group – where notice of the second meeting invited the claim group as amended by the first meeting to attend and was not a meeting of the whole of the claim group NATIVE TITLE – consequential orders – where competing applications to amend the composition of the claim group dismissed – where competing factions within the claim group – whether s 84D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) authorises the Court to convene a meeting of the claim group to resolve underlying issues within the claim group – where a number of preliminary matters, such as the location, notice and agenda for any such meeting, have not been determined – whether preservation orders appropriate – consideration of Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland [2013] FCA 255