CG (Deceased) on behalf of the Badimia People v State of Western Australia

The Badimia People, represented by CG (Deceased), filed an application for the determination of native title rights over a specific area against the State of Western Australia. The core dispute revolves around whether the claimants hold native title rights over the claim area, if they are descendants of ancestors who traditionally held rights and interests in the area, and if so, whether they have maintained a connection with the land through traditional laws and customs. Additionally, the application examined whether any acts by the State extinguished these native title rights.

The court was required to decide if the claimants have a continuous connection to the land, which is essential for establishing native title. This involved assessing the historical and anthropological evidence presented, particularly from Dr Christine Choo, an expert historian who provided comprehensive reports based on a wide range of primary and secondary sources. The court also needed to consider whether the claimants' rights and interests are traditional and if they have been maintained according to traditional laws and customs. Furthermore, the court examined whether any governmental acts, such as land grants or leases, extinguished the native title rights.

The Federal Court found that the claimants did not establish a continuous connection to the land, a critical element for the recognition of native title rights. The court highlighted the lack of substantial historical documentation regarding the Badimia people's traditional practices and their connection to the claim area. Dr Choo's reports, while detailed, did not sufficiently demonstrate the traditional and continuous connection required by law. Consequently, the court dismissed the claimants' application for the determination of native title rights over the specified area.

The court ordered that the parties would discuss the terms of the final orders to be made. If the State wished to propose any alternative orders to dismissal, it had to file and serve a draft order and supporting submissions by a specified date. The applicants were granted leave to respond to any such submissions, with a final hearing scheduled for a subsequent date.