Johnson v Native Title Registrar

Johnson brought an application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking to have the details of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) removed from the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements. The Native Title Registrar was the respondent. The State cross-applied for the application to be dismissed on the basis that Johnson had no reasonable prospect of success. The primary issue before the Court was whether Johnson's application for summary judgment had a reasonable prospect of success under section 199C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Court considered whether the alleged facts could constitute "duress" as defined by section 199C(3) of the Act. The Court also had to determine if the phrase "a party would not have entered into the agreement" in section 199C(3) referred only to the named parties or also to the broader group of native title holders.

The Court found that Johnson's application did not have a reasonable prospect of success. It reasoned that Johnson had to prove that the ILUA was entered into due to duress, which Johnson claimed was physical duress during the authorisation meeting. The Court assumed that Johnson could prove the alleged facts at trial. However, the Court concluded that Johnson's claims did not meet the threshold of "duress" as defined by the Act, nor did they satisfy the requirement that a party would not have entered into the agreement without the duress. The Court also noted that the phrase in section 199C(3) could refer to both the named parties and the broader group of native title holders, but this interpretation did not change the outcome.

The Court dismissed Johnson's application and the State's cross-application for summary judgment. The Court ordered that Johnson's Originating Application be dismissed, with the formal entry of orders to be handled under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.