Federal Court of Australia

Bonney v Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 2) [2026] FCA 66

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The applicant's interlocutory application accepted for filing on 15 January 2026 is dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(edited from the transcript)

JACKSON J:

1    On 20 November 2025, I granted summary dismissal of the claim made in this proceeding against the then third respondent, Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd: Bonney v Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2025] FCA 1451 (Bonney (No 1)).

2    The background and reasons for dismissing the claim against Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd are set out in Bonney (No 1) and will not be repeated here. I determined that the applicant, Ms Bonney, sought review under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) of a 'decision', where nothing done by Roe Legal Services WA Pty Ltd, acting as the lawyer for parties who arranged the incorporation of the first respondent, Watarra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, was capable of being a 'decision' reviewable under that Act.

3    On 15 January 2026, Ms Bonney filed an interlocutory application seeking the reinstatement of Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd as the third respondent and 'correction of the record to reflect the proper corporate identity'. On 21 January 2026, I directed that a hearing would be held for Ms Bonney to show cause why the interlocutory application should not be dismissed by the Court of its own motion. This is that hearing.

4    I have received into evidence an affidavit Ms Bonney swore on 5 January 2026 in support of her interlocutory application. I have also read written submissions Ms Bonney filed earlier today, and have listened to her oral submissions at this hearing. Ms Bonney does not have legal representation and, doing the best I can, it is not possible to discern from her affidavit and submissions any proper grounds for reinstating Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd as a respondent to the proceeding. I will nevertheless attempt to address the matters on which she relies.

5    In her affidavit, Ms Bonney provides evidence that 'Biyara Legal' is a business name of the entity that was the third respondent, namely Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd. She seems to contend that the decision in Bonney (No 1) was based on a misconception that there was a separate legal entity called Biyara Legal. In her written submissions, Ms Bonney contends that 'the Court dismissed Roe Legal (Biyara Legal) as a respondent based on this misleading information'.

6    Those contentions are simply wrong. In Bonney (No 1) at [2], I recorded that the 'third respondent, Roe Legal Services is a law firm, which now trades under the name Biyara Legal'. The bold was in the original; it indicated that I would proceed to use the trading name as a defined term to denote the then third respondent, Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd. There was no misunderstanding that there was a separate legal entity with that name.

7    Ms Bonney also seems to assert that certain statements in an affidavit sworn on 6 November 2025 by Kelsi Forrest, a director of Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd, about 'Biyara Legal' and 'Roe Legal Services' were incorrect. However, the relevant passage from that affidavit in full is:

1.    I am a principal at Biyara Legal (formerly known as Roe Legal Services) and I am a director of the third respondent, and I am authorised to make this affidavit on behalf of the third respondent.

2.     The corporate entity for Biyara Legal is the same as that for Roe Legal Services, being Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd. For ease of reference, in this affidavit I will refer to the third respondent as Biyara.

8    While this might have been expressed more clearly, it is evidently saying that there is one legal entity, Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd, and that it was once known as Roe Legal Services and now goes by the (business) name, Biyara Legal. There is nothing incorrect in any of that.

9    As I did in Bonney (No 1), Ms Forrest then proceeds to use the name 'Biyara' to refer to Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd. Ms Bonney submits that this is wrong, and that Ms Forrest should have used the correct legal name. There is no substance to that submission. Ms Forrest was free to use 'Biyara' as a defined term for Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd in her affidavit.

10    Other than the contentions I have just addressed, Ms Bonney's affidavit and submissions once again advance complaints about a meeting held in Kalgoorlie on 13 December 2021 which was attended by the Darlot people, who agreed to the application to register Watarra. She also advances again what appears to be her central complaint, that she was not recorded in the application for registration as a 'founding member' of Watarra.

11    For the reasons expressed in Bonney (No 1), whether or not those complaints have substance, nothing in them raises any reasonable prospect that anything done by Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd or by Ms Forrest is capable of constituting a 'decision' that is amenable to review under the ADJR Act.

12    In her affidavit and submissions, Ms Bonney makes specific reference to the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2021. She submits that they incorrectly omit her name and the names of other persons as founding members, that they inaccurately record the resolutions passed, and that they were not approved by the meeting participants. But even if all of that is true, none of it provides any ground for a proceeding against Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd for having made any decision reviewable under the ADJR Act.

13    Ms Bonney further states that she believes Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd 'holds or controls the minutes of that meeting'. But even if that is so, it too provides no basis to join that company as a respondent to this proceeding. If those minutes are relevant to the proceeding, they can be obtained through discovery processes or by subpoena. There is no need for Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd to be a party for those processes to result in the production of relevant documents.

14    Ms Bonney also appears to claim that in her affidavit sworn on 6 November 2025, Ms Forrest did not disclose her appointment as secretary of Watarra at the meeting on 13 December 2021. Ms Bonney also appears to state that Ms Forrest also did not disclose that the minute-taker at this meeting was a law clerk at Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd. Her submissions appear to claim that Ms Forrest's affidavit states that Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd had no involvement in the preparation of these minutes and that this affidavit is therefore incorrect.

15    There is no substance to those complaints. Ms Forrest's affidavit of 6 November 2025 says nothing about the meeting of 13 December 2025, so there was no need for her to disclose any of those matters. And even if there was such a need, and even if the disclosure was incomplete or incorrect, that would provide no intelligible ground to restore Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd as a respondent to this proceeding. In these circumstances, at least, performing the administrative function of writing minutes of a meeting is not something that is subject to challenge under the ADJR Act.

16    Other than the matters I have outlined, Ms Bonney put to the Court some speculation about whether Ms Forrest's affidavit of 6 November 2025 was properly sworn, but speculation was all that it was.

17    None of the matters raised in Ms Bonney's application to reinstate Roe Legal Services (WA) Pty Ltd as a respondent provide any reason to reconsider Bonney (No 1). The application has no merit and will be dismissed.

Associate:

Dated:    9 February 2026