Malone on behalf of the Western Kangoulu People v State of Queensland (No 4)

The case of Malone on behalf of the Western Kangoulu People v State of Queensland (No 4) involved an application for joinder under section 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) by Michael Paul Huet, a Ganggalu person, who sought to assert his native title rights and interests in the claim area. The Western Kangoulu people, represented by Malone, had already commenced native title proceedings against the State of Queensland, with specific questions regarding the existence and nature of native title rights and interests in the claim area having been determined separately. Mr Huet's application for joinder came after the trial of these separate questions and was based on his asserted rights and interests as a Ganggalu person.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Huet had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of native title rights and interests in the Western Kangoulu claim area and whether it was in the interests of justice to allow him to be joined to the proceeding at that stage. The court considered Mr Huet's late application and the adequacy of the evidence he provided to support his claim. The court also examined the potential prejudice to the existing parties if Mr Huet were to be joined at that late stage and the appropriateness of ordering Mr Huet to pay the applicant's costs due to his unreasonable conduct.

The court found that Mr Huet had provided little to no probative evidence of holding traditional rights and interests in the Western Kangoulu claim area. The evidence presented did not support the claim that all Ganggalu people hold rights and interests across the combined Western Kangoulu and GNP claim areas. Additionally, the court determined that allowing Mr Huet to be joined to the proceeding at that stage would be contrary to the interests of justice, given that the trial of the separate questions had already occurred. The court also found that Mr Huet's explanation for not applying earlier was inadequate. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicant file and serve a brief submission on the question of costs, and Mr Huet to file a reply. The question of costs would be determined on the papers unless a further oral hearing was requested.