Jones v State of Western Australia

[2010] FCA 1038

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jones v State of Western Australia [2010] FCA 1038

Citation:		Jones v State of Western Australia [2010] FCA 1038
Parties:		ALAN JONES AND OTHERS v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
File number:		WAD 6181 of 1998
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		16 September 2010
Date of hearing:	16 September 2010
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	7
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr DJ Branford
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Kott Gunning Lawyers
Counsel for the State of Western Australia:	Ms J Hook (with leave)
Solicitor for the for the State of Western Australia:	State Solicitor’s Office
Counsel for The Commonwealth of Australia:	Mr A Gerrard
Solicitor for The Commonwealth of Australia:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 6181 of 1998

BETWEEN:	ALAN JONES AND OTHERS Applicant
AND:	STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Monlor Pty Ltd be reinstated as a party to this proceeding.

2.Geoffrey Neal Miller be joined as a party to this proceeding.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 6181 of 1998

BETWEEN:	ALAN JONES AND OTHERS Applicant
AND:	STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application which is brought by Monlor Pty Ltd to be reinstated as a party to this proceeding, a native title determination application; and also an application by Mr Geoffrey Neal Miller to be joined as a party to the proceeding under s 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act). Mr Miller is a director and shareholder of Monlor.

2. Monlor was a party to this proceeding.  Monlor, however, ceased to be a party to the proceeding on 1 April 2010.  This occurred by the operation of orders that the Court made on 2 March 2010 requiring respondents to the native title determination application to advise the Court within 21 days as to whether they wanted to continue as parties to the proceeding and, if so, to provide a current address for service.  The orders contemplated that any party which did not respond within 21 days of service would cease to be a party, with liberty to apply to be reinstated.  Monlor failed to respond to the orders, within the specified period.  Mr Miller swore an affidavit in which he explained that he misunderstood the content and the operation of the orders.

3. Mr Miller also deposed that Monlor holds a leasehold interest over Lot 270, Dowerin, an area of land which is part of the subject area of the native title determination application.

4. In support of his application to be joined as a party in his own right, Mr Miller deposed that he holds a leasehold interest in Lot 269, an adjoining property to Lot 270.  Mr Miller explained the delay in applying to be joined as a party in his own right, on the basis that he had previously believed that there was a sufficient congruity of interest between himself and Monlor in respect of the two adjacent parcels of affected land, as not to warrant his becoming a party in his own name.  However, explained Mr Miller, this belief was flawed because there were, and are, in fact, other persons who also have an interest in Monlor.  Mr Miller annexed to his affidavit a company search which shows that he is not the only director or shareholder of the company Monlor.

5. In my view, it is clear on the evidence that Mr Miller has a personal interest in land which is the subject of this native title determination application, and that this interest qualifies him under s 253 of the Act, and s 84(5) of the Act, to be a party to the proceeding.

6. Each of the parties, which was represented today, namely, the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, did not oppose the making of the orders.

7. I am, therefore, satisfied that the orders which are sought by Monlor and Mr Miller should be made.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Associate:

Dated:        23 September 2010