McGlade v Registrar Native Title Tribunal & Ors; Eades v Registrar Native Title Tribunal & Ors; Smith v Registrar Native Title Tribunal & Ors; Culbong v Registrar Native Title Tribunal & Ors

These proceedings in the High Court of Australia concerned four applications brought by Mingli Wanjurri McGlade and others against the Registrar of the Native Title Tribunal and various other parties, including the State of Western Australia and Aboriginal corporations representing native title groups. The core dispute revolved around the registration of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) under the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth). The applicants sought to have the matters determined by the High Court, arguing that a significant legal issue had arisen from a Federal Court decision that was impacting the registration of ILUAs across Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the matters should be retained by the High Court for determination or remitted to a lower court. Specifically, the applicants contended that the interpretation of the *Native Title Act* regarding the requirement for all registered native title claimants to be parties to an area ILUA was being misapplied by the Native Title Tribunal, following a decision by Justice Reeves. This misapplication, they argued, meant that ILUAs were being registered when not all necessary parties had signed, potentially leading to the extinguishment of native title rights based on a flawed legal premise.

The applicants argued that the *Native Title Act* mandates that all persons in a native title group, and specifically all registered native title claimants, must be parties to an area ILUA. They submitted that the current practice, influenced by the Federal Court decision, allowed for registration if only one registered native title claimant signed, irrespective of the number of other claimants. This, they contended, created a fundamental error in the application of the Act, causing grave prejudice by delaying the resolution of native title claims and potentially leading to the invalid extinguishment of rights. The applicants also highlighted section 66B of the Act, which provides a mechanism for removing a registered claimant, as a safety valve within the statutory scheme, suggesting that if a claimant refused to sign, they could be removed through a court process, thereby allowing the ILUA to proceed with the agreement of all remaining parties.

The High Court was asked to determine whether the matter should be retained in the High Court, given its significance and the potential for widespread impact on native title settlements across Australia. The applicants sought a speedy resolution to clarify the law and prevent the perpetuation of what they believed to be a fundamental error in the administration of the *Native Title Act*.