Noble v Mundraby, Murgha, Harris and Garling

In the case of Noble v Mundraby, Murgha, Harris and Garling, the dispute centred around the authorisation of a group of individuals to act as the applicants in a native title determination claim. The applicants, Mr Mundraby, Mr Murgha, Mr Harris, and Mr Garling, sought leave to appeal or, alternatively, to appeal from the primary judge’s decision under section 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The central legal issue was whether the removal of Mr Noble as an applicant was authorised under section 251B of the Act and whether the decision was made by the native title claim group in accordance with a process of decision-making agreed to and adopted by the group.

The court examined the process of decision-making adopted by the native title claim group to determine whether the removal of Mr Noble was authorised. The primary judge found that the group had agreed to a vote as the process of decision-making, as evidenced by the meeting minutes. The court held that section 251B does not require a formal system of decision-making but rather proof of the process used for the specific decision. The evidence supported the primary judge's conclusion that the claim group agreed to a vote to determine the authorisation, with all members voting in favour and no dissent recorded. Therefore, the requirements of section 251B were satisfied.

Given the evidence supporting the primary judge's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that if leave to appeal was required, it should be refused; otherwise, the appeal should be dismissed outright. This decision underscores the importance of following agreed-upon processes within native title claim groups to ensure the legitimacy of decisions affecting their members.