Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of; Western Australia (No 6)

In the case of Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v State of Western Australia (No 6), the applicants sought an adjournment of the fourth and final six-week tranche of hearing dates until a decision was made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) on an application for further funding. The Wongatha claim, concerning an area of approximately 154,300 square kilometres, has a complex history with numerous native title claims, future act proceedings, and various forms of tenure. The proceeding has already occupied approximately 65 hearing days and involved extensive evidence and documentation. The applicants argued that without additional funding, they would be unable to have legal representation in the complex litigation, which would create difficulties in presenting their case effectively.

The court had to decide whether to grant the adjournment based on the applicants' lack of legal representation due to ATSIC's indecision on the funding application. The court considered the history of requests made by the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, representing the applicants, to ATSIC for a decision on the funding application, as well as the difficulties the applicants would face without legal representation in the complex litigation. The court also weighed the considerations favouring the retention of the hearing dates, including the significant costs already incurred by the parties and the court, and the potential wastage of resources if the proceedings were adjourned indefinitely.

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the motion for adjournment, emphasizing the importance of exploring mediation as a means to resolve the dispute. The court's decision highlighted the need for the parties to continue with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays. The court formally dismissed the motion and reiterated the desirability of fully exploring mediation as a potential resolution to the dispute.

The court's orders were that the motion brought by notice of motion filed 18 June 2003 be dismissed. This decision underscored the importance of proceeding with the hearing dates as scheduled and avoiding further adjournments, while also encouraging the parties to explore mediation as a means to resolve the complex native title claim.