Anderson v Queensland

In the case of Anderson v Queensland, the applicant, the Wulli Wulli native title claim group, sought to challenge a decision made by a majority of its members to change the solicitor on record for the group’s native title application. The dispute arose from a resolution passed at an authorisation meeting on 13 June 2011, which authorised the applicant to act on behalf of the claim group under certain terms and conditions, including that decisions of the applicant shall be made on the basis of a majority vote. The minority members of the applicant, who were opposed to the change of solicitor, argued that the decision was not effective because it did not represent a unanimous decision of all members of the applicant.

The court was required to determine whether the decision of a majority of the applicant to change the solicitor on record was effective, and whether the decision of the applicant must be unanimous. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), as well as relevant case law, including Butchulla, Doolan and Chapman. The court noted that the authorisation of each person comprising the applicant was in their personal capacity and that the Act did not imply that the ability of the persons constituting the applicant to act was dependent upon the others continuing to act.

The court found that the decision of 12 of the 15 persons constituting the applicant, that a notice be filed changing the solicitor on record, was effective. The court noted that the resolution of the authorisation meeting empowering the applicant included a condition that the applicant was able to make effective decisions by majority. The court further noted that the minority members of the applicant were capable, able and willing to continue to serve as members of the applicant and that principles specifically relevant to such circumstances were not applicable in this case. The court concluded that the decision of the majority of the applicant was effective, and dismissed the motion.

The court held that the decision of a majority of the applicant to change the solicitor on record was effective in the circumstances of this case. The court found that the authorisation of each person comprising the applicant was in their personal capacity and that the Act did not imply that the ability of the persons constituting the applicant to act was dependent upon the others continuing to act. The court further held that the resolution of the authorisation meeting empowering the applicant included a condition that the applicant was able to make effective decisions by majority. The court dismissed the motion and made no orders.