Bodney v State of Western Australia

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bodney v State of Western Australia [2001] FCA 297
RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS, ROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY, WILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY, GREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY AND CORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS
WAG 142 OF 1998
WAG 141 OF 1998
WAG 137 OF 1998
WAG 138 OF 1998
WAG 139 OF 1998
WAG 140 OF 1998
WAG 149 OF 1998
JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J
DATE:           21 MARCH 2001
PLACE:         PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAG 142 OF 1998
WAG 141 OF 1998
WAG 137 OF 1998
WAG 138 OF 1998
WAG 139 OF 1998
WAG 140 OF 1998
WAG 149 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS

AND

ROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY

AND

WILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY

AND

GREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY

AND

CORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS
APPLICANTS

AND:

STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J

DATE:

21 MARCH 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR DIRECTIONS
BEAUMONT J:

On 20 March 2001, I made orders rescheduling the timetable in this matter, which is now in my substantive docket. I then indicated that I would provide reasons, as follows, for doing so.
In my opinion, it is necessary pursuant to s 67(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), in the interests of effective case management, to exclude from the trial so much of the claim in WAG 149 of 1998 as overlaps the Yued (WAG 6192 of 1998), Ballardong (WAG 6181 of 1998) and Gnaala Karla Booja (WAG 6274 of 1998) proceedings, given the size and apparent complexity and diversity of all of these claims.
Given the evident lack of activity to date in the prosecution of the claims, it has become inevitable that the timetable be extended. However, I have and will keep the period 3 September until 21 September available for this matter; and in particular, if appropriate, I will be available to hear in chief any connection evidence from any applicant, especially if there are concerns about the health of any witness.
When the matter is next before me for directions (on 19 June 2001, or earlier if urgent), I expect to be informed of the scope of outstanding issues, if any, relating to land tenure details, including any questions that may require the Court to retain a cartographer as a consultant for that purpose.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Directions herein of the Honourable Acting Chief Justice Beaumont.
Associate:
Dated: 21 March 2001

For the Applicants: Mr M Rynne
Mr Bodney appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondents: Mr S Wright, Mr Pettit

Solicitor for the Respondents: Crown Solicitors Office

Counsel for the Second Respondents: Mr A Beach

Solicitor for the Second Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for Telstra: Mr J Thomson

Solicitor for Telstra: Blake Dawson Waldron

Counsel for University of Western Australia: Mr G Gallic

Solicitor for University of Western Australia: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Counsel for various local government respondents and anor Mr M Gregory

Solicitor for various local government respondents and anor Minter Ellison

Counsel for WAFIC Ms K White

Solicitor for WAFIC Hunt and Humphry

Counsel for Alcoa and ors Mr K Jagger, Ms C Piper

Solicitor for Alcoa and ors Freehills

Date of Hearing: 20 March 2001

Date of Directions: 21 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bodney v State of Western Australia involves multiple applicants representing various indigenous groups, including the Darbarlyung Noongars, Swan Valley Nyungah Community, Warrell Family, and the Bodney Family Ballaruks, who are seeking native title rights over specified areas in Western Australia. They have brought this action against the State of Western Australia, as well as various other respondents including Telstra, the University of Western Australia, and local government bodies. The applicants argue that they have a traditional connection to the land in question and that their rights have not been extinguished. The case was heard by Justice Beaumont in the Federal Court of Australia, Western Australia District Registry.

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the determination of native title rights and interests over specific areas in Western Australia, particularly in light of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicants must prove a continuous traditional connection to the land, and that this connection has not been extinguished by subsequent legislation or actions. The court must also consider the extent to which these rights and interests may overlap with those claimed by other indigenous groups in related proceedings. Justice Beaumont had to balance the need for effective case management against the interests of the applicants in having their claims heard in a comprehensive manner.

Justice Beaumont concluded that it was necessary to exclude from the trial the parts of the claim in WAG 149 of 1998 that overlapped with other claims to ensure effective case management. Given the size and complexity of the claims, the timetable was extended to allow for more thorough consideration. The judge also set aside specific dates for hearing connection evidence, particularly if there were concerns about the health of any witnesses. Additionally, the court expected to be informed of any outstanding issues related to land tenure details, which might require the retention of a cartographer as a consultant.

The court issued orders rescheduling the timetable for the case and provided specific dates for hearing connection evidence and discussing land tenure issues. The decision underscored the importance of managing the case effectively to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed in a fair and timely manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAG 142 OF 1998 WAG 141 OF 1998 WAG 137 OF 1998 WAG 138 OF 1998 WAG 139 OF 1998 WAG 140 OF 1998 WAG 149 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS AND ROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY AND WILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY AND GREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY AND CORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS APPLICANTS
AND:	STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE:	21 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

For the Applicants:	Mr M Rynne Mr Bodney appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondents:	Mr S Wright, Mr Pettit
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Crown Solicitors Office
Counsel for the Second Respondents:	Mr A Beach
Solicitor for the Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for Telstra:	Mr J Thomson
Solicitor for Telstra:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Counsel for University of Western Australia:	Mr G Gallic
Solicitor for University of Western Australia:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Counsel for various local government respondents and anor	Mr M Gregory
Solicitor for various local government respondents and anor	Minter Ellison
Counsel for WAFIC	Ms K White
Solicitor for WAFIC	Hunt and Humphry
Counsel for Alcoa and ors	Mr K Jagger, Ms C Piper
Solicitor for Alcoa and ors	Freehills
Date of Hearing:	20 March 2001
Date of Directions:	21 March 2001