FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hillig as Administrator of Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council

v Minister for Lands for the State of New South Wales (No 3) [2006] FCA 1776

PETER HILLIG IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WORMI LOCAL ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL v MINISTER FOR LANDS FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AS THE STATE MINISTER UNDER THE NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 (CTH) AND NSW NATIVE TITLE SERVICES LTD

NSD 1989 OF 2004

BENNETT J

19 DECEMBER 2006

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The proceedings, including Mr Dates’ motion for joinder filed on 23 August 2005, be stood over to 6 February 2007 at 9:30 am. 

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     I refer to my decision in Worimi v Minister for Lands for the State of New South Wales [2006] FCA 1770in which I dealt with an application to strike out a native title claimant application (‘the claimant proceedings’).  There was also before me an application by Mr Dates (‘Worimi’) to be joined to these proceedings (‘the Hillig proceedings’), in which Mr Hillig as administrator of the Worimi Local Aboriginal Land Council seeks a declaration that no native title exists over land at Port Stephens. 

2                     Different issues may arise with respect to Worimi’s application for joinder to the Hillig proceedings.  Different standards may apply to the assessment of the membership of the claim group, questions of authorisation and the relevance of these matters to the application for joinder.  Further, there has been evidence filed in the Hillig proceedings which was not taken into account in the claimant proceedings.  That includes evidence of another member of Worimi’s family who was not included in the claim group of the claimant application.

3                     The claimant proceedings were an application to strike out a native title claimant application.  Mr Wright sought to tender affidavits in that proceeding earlier filed in these proceedings.  Ms Jowett indicated an objection to those affidavits.  I have only had regard to them to the extent to which Worimi referred to those affidavits in his evidence in support of the claimant proceedings, or Ms Jowett referred to them in written submissions or in argument (Worimi at [15] to [22]). 

4                     The parties did not address me separately on the application for joinder.  In the circumstances, I propose to give them the opportunity to do so.  I will hear from the parties as to whether they wish to have Worimi’s motion for joinder heard and as to the time and method of any submissions.

Associate:

Dated:         19 December 2006