Dimer on behalf of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie Claim Group v State of Western Australia (No 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Dimer, on behalf of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie Claim Group, was involved in a native title dispute against the State of Western Australia. The dispute centred around the scope of the Native Title Services Goldfields Limited's (NTSG) participation as a party to the proceeding, which was funded to perform the functions of a representative body under Part 11 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The legal issues before the court included whether the geographic limitation on NTSG's participation in the proceeding should be removed and whether the interlocutory applications should be dismissed.

The court addressed the first issue by noting that NTSG was appointed to perform representative body functions for the entirety of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie claim area, making the geographic limitation unnecessary. The court concluded that there was no reason to maintain this limitation, and no party opposed its removal. The second issue, concerning the vacating of trial dates, was dismissed by the court on the basis that it was not in the interests of justice and would cause unfair prejudice to NTSG and the State of Western Australia. The court emphasized the importance of efficient use of judicial resources, timely resolution of disputes, and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system.

The final orders included varying the limitation on NTSG's participation to issues arising in the proceeding which relate to membership of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie native title claim group, dismissing the interlocutory applications, and removing certain affidavits from the court file. These orders were made to ensure a just but timely and cost-effective resolution of the dispute, consistent with the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions.