Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2)

The case of Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) involved two competing applications to amend the composition of the native title claim group in the Bigambul native title determination application. The first application was filed by a faction within the claim group, seeking to remove one apical ancestor from the description of the claim group and to replace the current applicant. The second application was filed by the authorised applicant, based on two meetings that sought to remove one apical ancestor and add others. The key legal issue was whether the notices for the meetings gave adequate and proper notice of the business to be conducted at those meetings, such that the resolutions passed at those meetings constituted the informed and legitimate views of the whole of the Bigambul NTCG.

The court found that the notice for the Carseldine meeting was inadequate to provide the descendants of Sally with a fair opportunity to decide whether to attend that meeting. The notice was vague and ambiguous, and did not squarely state that one of the two main purposes of the meeting was to consider whether to remove Sally, and only Sally, as an apical ancestor for the Bigambul NTCG. The court also rejected the attempt to distinguish the decision in Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland [2013] FCA 255 on its facts, finding that the notice of the meeting had to be drafted so that it made it clear to anyone in the native title claim group who may be affected by the matters to be considered at the meeting that such a situation may arise at the meeting.

The court dismissed both applications to amend the composition of the native title claim group. It found that the notices for the meetings in question did not give adequate and proper notice of the business to be conducted at those meetings, such that the resolutions passed at those meetings did not constitute the informed and legitimate views of the whole of the Bigambul NTCG. The court did not consider it appropriate to convene a meeting of the claim group to resolve underlying issues within the claim group, as a number of preliminary matters, such as the location, notice and agenda for any such meeting, had not been determined. Therefore, the orders of the court were that the application filed on 26 October 2011 and the application filed on 4 March 2013 were dismissed.