QGC Pty Limited v Alberts

In the matter of QGC Pty Limited v Alberts, the Federal Court was asked to consider an application by four cross-claimants seeking to be joined to the proceedings under rule 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The applicants sought to be acknowledged as successors to deceased or incapacitated signatories of an area agreement registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements under section 199B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the applicants had the legal standing to be joined to the proceedings as successors to the deceased or incapacitated signatories.

The court held that there was no evidence other than self-assertion to support the applicants' claims to be successors to the deceased or incapacitated signatories. The court found that the land use agreement did not create rights transmissible on death to family members and that the reference to successors in the agreement was to successors in office. The court further held that the definition of "party" in the agreement included "successors," but that the word "successors" must be construed in the context of clause 2(b) of the agreement. The court found that the signatories comprising the native title party were akin to holders of an office under the agreement and that the purpose of the use of the word "successors" in the agreement was to ensure that a person could replace the deceased or incapable parent's position as a representative of a particular family group or groups on whose behalf they signed the agreement. The court concluded that none of the applicants had any status to suggest that they ought to have been joined originally as a party to the proceeding or that their joinder was necessary to ensure that each issue in dispute was able to be finally determined. The court therefore dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the court found that the cross-claimants' application for four individuals to be joined to the proceedings under rule 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 was dismissed. The court held that there was no evidence other than self-assertion to support the applicants' claims to be successors to the deceased or incapacitated signatories. The court found that the land use agreement did not create rights transmissible on death to family members and that the reference to successors in the agreement was to successors in office. The court held that the definition of "party" in the agreement included "successors," but that the word "successors" must be construed in the context of clause 2(b) of the agreement. The court found that the signatories comprising the native title party were akin to holders of an office under the agreement and that the purpose of the use of the word "successors" in the agreement was to ensure that a person could replace the deceased or incapable parent's position as a representative of a particular family group or groups on whose behalf they signed the agreement. The court therefore dismissed the application.