Far West Coast Native Title Claim v State of South Australia (No 6)

In the matter of Far West Coast Native Title Claim v State of South Australia (No 6), Mr Miller, a member of the Mirning native title claim group, sought several interlocutory orders in relation to a proposed consent determination for the Far West Coast Native Title Claim. Mr Miller's application was based on his concerns that the proposed consent determination did not adequately reflect the interests and rights of the Mirning people. The court was required to determine whether Mr Miller had standing to make the application, whether the orders sought were appropriate as interlocutory relief, and whether there were any new circumstances that warranted a reconsideration of the previously denied orders.

The court found that Mr Miller did not have standing to make the interlocutory application as he was not a party to the proceeding and had not become a respondent. The court noted that members of a native title claim group generally do not have the status to seek orders of the type sought by Mr Miller unless they first become a party under section 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court also found that some of the orders sought by Mr Miller were in the nature of final orders rather than interlocutory relief, and thus could not be sought on an interlocutory application. Additionally, the court observed that a number of the orders sought were similar to those previously sought by Mr Miller and denied, with no new circumstances presented to warrant reconsideration.

The court declined to make the orders sought by Mr Miller or to make the findings of fact he sought to be made at the hearing. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of standing of Mr Miller to make the interlocutory application, the inappropriateness of some of the orders as interlocutory relief, and the absence of new circumstances warranting a reconsideration of the previously denied orders. The court did not make any orders in favour of Mr Miller.

The court's decision highlights the importance of standing and the appropriate use of interlocutory applications in native title proceedings. The court's ruling ensures that the process remains fair and efficient, and that the interests of all parties are properly represented. The outcome of this case underscores the need for claimants to carefully consider their legal options and to seek appropriate relief in the context of native title determination applications.