FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Lansen v Northern Territory of Australia [2016] FCA 567 File number: NTD 6030 of 2000 Judge: WHITE J Date of judgment: 20 May 2016 Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – application under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to replace original applicant – replacement applicants authorised by claim group to make application – orders made to replace original applicant. Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 66B Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Date of last submissions: The Respondents did not provide submissions Registry: Northern Territory Division: General Division National Practice Area: Native Title Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 10 Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms A Gibson of Northern Land Council Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear ORDERS NTD 6030 of 2000 BETWEEN: HARRY LANSEN Applicant AND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED Second Respondent MAXIMUS NO. 82 PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent JUDGE: WHITE J DATE OF ORDER: 20 MAY 2016 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), Asman Rory, Christopher Pluto and Tom Hume (the Replacement Applicants) replace the current Applicant in the proceedings. 2. The heading of the claimant application be amended to reflect the names of the Replacement Applicants. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WHITE J: 1 The underlying application for native title on behalf of the Alawa People was filed in the Court on 20 December 2000. There was a single applicant, HL, to whom I will refer as "the Original Applicant". The Original Applicant is now deceased. 2 On 1 August 2013, Asman Rory, Christopher Pluto and Tom Hume, to whom I will refer as "the Replacement Applicants", applied for an order pursuant to s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NT Act) that they replace the Original Applicant in the proceedings and for consequential orders. For reasons which are unclear, this application has not yet been determined by the Court. 3 At the callover on 13 April 2016, the Court was informed that all respondents other than one had indicated their consent to the order. The exception was the third respondent, Maximus No. 82 Pty Ltd, which is the holder of a pastoral lease over part of the area for which native title is claimed. An affidavit from Ms Gibson from the Northern Lands Council indicated that Maximus No. 82 had been provided in August 2013 with a copy of the interlocutory application of 1 August 2013 and the supporting affidavits. It had responded by seeking further information about the Replacement Applicants. Maximus No. 82 did not respond to later correspondence. 4 In those circumstances, I directed that the interlocutory application filed on 1 August 2013 be listed for hearing on 5 May 2016 and that any party who wished to make oral submissions at that hearing was to file and serve a written notice to that effect by close of business on 28 April 2016. I directed further that in the event that no party wished to be heard orally, the Court would vacate the hearing and deal with the matter on the papers. 5 Maximus No. 82 did not attend the callover on 13 April 2016. I am satisfied, however, that the Northern Land Council has, on behalf of the Replacement Applicants, by email and hard copy correspondence, attempted to give it notice of the Court's orders made that day. In each case delivery has failed. It can be inferred in these circumstances that Maximus No. 82 has changed its address without informing the Court of its new address. 6 On 4 May 2016, I ordered that the hearing for 5 May 2016 be vacated and that the interlocutory application be decided on the papers. What follows is my decision on the application. 7 Section 66B of the NT Act authorises the Court to order that particular persons replace an original applicant for native title if the Court is satisfied (relevantly) that the current applicant is dead and that the Replacement Applicants are authorised by the claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it. 8 On the basis of the affidavits of Mr Rory, Mr Pluto and Mr Hume, I am satisfied of the following matters: (1) each of Mr Rory, Mr Pluto and Mr Hume claims to be a part of the Alawa People through descent from identified apical ancestors; (2) each attended a meeting of the Alawa People about the current application at the office of the Northern Land Council in Borroloola on 18 July 2013 (the Authorisation Meeting); (3) the business of the Authorisation Meeting concerned the replacement, amongst other things, of the Original Applicant as the applicant in these proceedings. Notice to that effect had been given and families from the Alawa People attended the meeting. In particular, senior decision-making members of the Group were present at Authorisation Meeting; (4) each of Mr Rory, Mr Pluto and Mr Hume was authorised by members of the claim group at the Authorisation Meeting to make the present application; (5) the decision-making process at the Authorisation Meeting followed that traditionally adopted by the Alawa People in making decisions, namely, the senior members of the native title claim group discussed who should be the applicant and then agreed by consensus to appoint persons to be the applicant; (6) that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion vested by s 66B(2) to make the orders sought by the Replacement Applicants. The proceedings must have a current applicant and Mr Rory, Mr Pluto and Mr Hume have been properly appointed for that purpose. 9 Accordingly, I make the following orders: (1) Pursuant to s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), Asman Rory, Christopher Pluto and Tom Hume (the Replacement Applicants) replace the current Applicant in the proceedings; and (2) The heading of the claimant application be amended to reflect the names of the Replacement Applicants. 10 It was not suggested that any other orders are appropriate at this stage. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice White. Associate: Dated: 20 May 2016 SCHEDULE OF PARTIES NTD 6030 of 2000 Respondents Fourth Respondent: NORTHERN TERRITORY LAND CORPORATION Fifth Respondent: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED