Dimer on behalf of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie Claim Group v State of Western Australia

In the case of Dimer on behalf of the Marlinyu Ghoorlie Claim Group v State of Western Australia, the applicants, Sharmain Nelson, Reginald Hayden, and Michael Hayden, sought to join the proceeding as parties, asserting their native title rights and interests as Njaki Njaki people. They sought to have their interests recognised in relation to the claim area, which is part of the broader Marlinyu Ghoorlie claim. The State of Western Australia opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had not established a prima facie case for their native title rights and interests within the claim area. Additionally, the State applied for the removal of the Cooper respondents and Ms Sambo, citing inadequate pleading of their native title rights and interests.

The court had to decide whether the joinder applicants had a sufficient interest to warrant their inclusion as parties and whether the interests of justice supported their joinder. The court also had to consider whether the removal of the Cooper respondents and Ms Sambo was appropriate, given the adequacy of their claims and the potential prejudice to the proceeding. The court found that the joinder applicants had not presented probative evidence capable of supporting a finding that they had a prima facie interest in the claim area. The court noted significant delays in asserting their rights and interests, and the lack of detailed evidence regarding their traditional laws and customs, extent of their country, and connection to the land and waters within the claim area. Consequently, the application for joinder was dismissed, and further submissions were invited on whether the applicants should remain as respondents in a related proceeding. Regarding the removal application, the court adjourned the application in relation to the Cooper respondents to allow for further particulars, while dismissing the application concerning Ms Sambo. The State was granted liberty to re-apply for the removal of the Cooper respondents after receiving the requested particulars.

The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence presented by the joinder applicants to establish their native title rights and interests within the claim area. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a prima facie case and that their joinder would not be in the interests of justice due to the significant delay and the lack of detailed evidence. The court also noted that the interests of justice did not favour the removal of Ms Sambo, but it adjourned the removal application concerning the Cooper respondents to allow for the provision of further particulars. The final orders included the dismissal of the joinder application, the adjournment of the removal application for the Cooper respondents, and the dismissal of the removal application for Ms Sambo. The court also invited further submissions regarding the status of the joinder applicants in a related proceeding and directed the provision of further particulars by the Cooper respondents.