Noble v Murgha

The case of Noble v Murgha involved an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Dowsett J, who had removed the applicant, Mr Noble, as an applicant in a native title determination application. The dispute centred on whether the removal was authorised under Section 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and whether the decision was made by the native title claim group in accordance with an agreed-upon process of decision-making. The application for leave to appeal was based on the grounds that the removal decision was incorrect in fact and law, as the respondents did not have the authority to remove Mr Noble under Section 251B. Additionally, the applicant argued that the judge had failed to correctly apply Section 251B by not identifying the process of decision-making and not considering whether it had been agreed to and adopted by the native title claim group.

The court was required to determine if the removal of Mr Noble was authorised under Section 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), specifically whether the claim group had the authority to remove him and whether this was done in accordance with a process of decision-making that had been agreed to and adopted by the members of the claim group. The court also needed to consider whether the judge had correctly applied Section 251B in his decision.

The court found that the decision of Dowsett J was correct. The court noted that the claim group had referred the matter of Mr Noble's removal to the elders for their decision, as per the traditional law and custom. Although Mr Noble disputed the claim group's laws and customs, the court found that there was only one set of laws and customs within the claim group, and that the claim group had agreed to abide by the elders' decision. The court found that the elders had unanimously agreed to remove Mr Noble, and that the claim group had adopted that resolution. The court also noted that the decision of the judge was in accordance with Section 251B, as all requirements had been satisfied.

Accordingly, leave to appeal from the judgment of Dowsett J was refused.