Button v Chapman

Case [2003] FCA 861


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Button v Chapman on behalf of the Wakka Wakka People [2003] FCA 861

Statutes

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 61(2)(a) and (c) 62 and 66B

Federal Court Rules O 6, O 20 r 2(1)(c)

Cases

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378

BUTTON V OSCAR CHAPMAN, ELLEN SHADFORD, CYRIL COUCHY, LILLIAN MIMI, DAVID BEEZLEY, MICHAEL BOND, PAM DUNCAN, MAVIS HAWKINS, PATRICIA BOND, BERYL GAMBRILL, PASTOR HENRY COLLINS, ROBERT LACY, REGGIE LITTLE, GEORGE BONE, SAM MURRAY JNR AND KEVIN DOOLON (‘WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2’) AND
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS

Q6032 of 1999

KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
20 AUGUST 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q6032 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

BURT BUTTON
APPLICANT

AND:

OSCAR CHAPMAN, ELLEN SHADFORD, CYRIL COUCHY, LILLIAN MIMI, DAVID BEEZLEY, MICHAEL BOND, PAM DUNCAN, MAVIS HAWKINS, PATRICIA BOND, BERYL GAMBRILL, PASTOR HENRY COLLINS, ROBERT LACY, REGGIE LITTLE, GEORGE BONE, SAM MURRAY JNR AND KEVIN DOOLON (‘WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2’)

AND

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 AUGUST 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The motion to strike out the application for native title determination is dismissed.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2.The applicants other than Mr S J Murray Jnr, Mr G Bone and Mr R Little, confer within two (2) months as to:

(a)whether they intend to apply to the Court to remove those three persons as applicants;  and

(b)whether they propose continuing with the application in its present form.

3.Any application to remove applicants is to be filed by 14 November 2003 and forthwith served upon the three applicants referred to in direction 2.

4.If no application is filed by that date, the application is to be listed for directions on 12 December 2003.

5.A copy of this order and the reasons be served on the three applicants, referred to in direction 2.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q6032 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

BURT BUTTON
APPLICANT

AND:

OSCAR CHAPMAN, ELLEN SHADFORD, CYRIL COUCHY, LILLIAN MIMI, DAVID BEEZLEY, MICHAEL BOND, PAM DUNCAN, MAVIS HAWKINS, PATRICIA BOND, BERYL GAMBRILL, PASTOR HENRY COLLINS, ROBERT LACY, REGGIE LITTLE, GEORGE BONE, SAM MURRAY JNR AND KEVIN DOOLON (‘WAKKA WAKKA PEOPLE #2’)

AND

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE:

20 AUGUST 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. There are sixteen persons named as applicants in these proceedings, on behalf of the Wakka Wakka People. The anthropologist engaged by the Gurang Land Council, which formerly acted for the applicants, has identified some fifteen descent groups within the larger group. The affidavit material filed by the Gurang Land Council, which is relied upon by one of the applicants who responds to this motion, shows that meetings were convened before the application was brought. The affidavits relating to authorisation, as required by s 62 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) were…

Continue reading Button v Chapman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Button v Chapman [2003] FCA 861
Case
[2003] FCA 861
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia in Button v Chapman involved an application for a determination of native title by various applicants. The dispute arose when the respondents sought to have the application struck out, arguing that certain named applicants were not validly authorised to represent the native title claimants. The court was tasked with deciding whether the application could proceed with the named applicants and whether any of them should be removed from the proceedings.

The legal issues centred on the authority of the applicants to represent the native title claimants and the procedural requirements for making a native title determination. The court had to consider whether the applicants had the necessary authorisation from the native title claimants and if the application could proceed under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Additionally, the court examined the implications of the respondents' contention that certain applicants lacked proper authorisation and the effect this had on the validity of the application.

In its decision, the court found that the motion to strike out the application was not successful, dismissing the respondents' contention. The court acknowledged that there were concerns about the authorisation of certain applicants but concluded that these issues did not warrant a complete dismissal of the application. The court directed that the remaining applicants confer within two months to determine whether they intended to proceed with the application and whether they would seek to remove the three named applicants. If no application to remove the applicants was filed by 14 November 2003, the court scheduled the matter for further directions on 12 December 2003. The court also ordered that the reasons for the decision and the orders be served on the three applicants in question.

The court's decision ensured that the application for native title determination could proceed, while also providing a clear pathway for addressing the concerns about the authorisation of the applicants. This allowed the matter to move forward in an orderly manner, with the remaining applicants having the opportunity to address the issues and decide their course of action.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The motion to strike out the application for native title determination is dismissed.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2. The applicants other than Mr S J Murray Jnr, Mr G Bone and Mr R Little, confer within two (2) months as to:

(a) whether they intend to apply to the Court to remove those three persons as applicants; and

(b) whether they propose continuing with the application in its present form.

3. Any application to remove applicants is to be filed by 14 November 2003 and forthwith served upon the three applicants referred to in direction 2.

4. If no application is filed by that date, the application is to be listed for directions on 12 December 2003.

5. A copy of this order and the reasons be served on the three applicants, referred to in direction 2.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

KIEFEL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KIEFEL J

Full text does not contain this section.