TJ v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 818

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TJ (on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People) v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 818 Citation: TJ (on behalf of the Yindjibarndi People) v State of Western Australia [2015] FCA 818

Parties: TJ (ON BEHALF OF THE YINDJIBARNDI PEOPLE) AND OTHERS (AS PER THE SCHEDULE) v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS (AS PER THE SCHEDULE)

File number: WAD 6005 of 2003

Judge: RARES J

Date of judgment: 21 July 2015

Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – requirements for valid notice of meeting – whether notice of meeting issued sufficient to enable persons to decide whether to attend and or vote on resolutions for authorisation – where notice of meeting capable of misleading persons in relation to business of meeting – where full text of proposed resolutions not included in notice – where sufficient explanation of purpose of meeting not provided – where notice of proposed authorisation process failed to adequately inform persons in claim group about the business to be voted on – persons entitled to vote not properly identified in notice of meeting – where approximately half of members of claim group were not sent notice of meeting NATIVE TITLE – whether authorisation process complied with the requirements of s 251B Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – application to replace applicant in native title claim under s 66B– whether members of claim group effectively authorised proposed replacement applicant to make application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it under ss 66B(1)(b) and 251B – consideration of purported authorisation process – whether voting process sufficient to satisfy requirements in ss 66B and 251B for authorisation where claim group effectively prevented from voting – where authorisation had appearance of rewarding persons associated with proposed replacement applicant with valuable shopping vouchers – where role played by third party in supporting and organising meeting not revealed to claim group and such information may have influenced outcome – whether Court should exercise discretion in s 66B(2) to replace current applicant