Quall v Risk

In the case of Quall v Risk, the Federal Court considered the application of Mr Quall for a determination of native title. The court had to determine whether Mr Quall's application complied with the statutory requirements, specifically those outlined in section 61 of the Native Title Act. The application was originally lodged prior to the 1998 amendments, which introduced stricter requirements for applicants, including the need to assert authorisation by all relevant persons in a native title claimant group.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether the court should apply the old section 61 to Mr Quall's application, given it was lodged before the 1998 amendments; and second, whether an amendment to the application by Mr Quall necessitated compliance with the new section 61 requirements. The court found that because Mr Quall had amended his application, changing the composition of the claimants, he was required to comply with the new statutory requirements. The court held that the amendment did not merely preserve the status quo, but rather triggered a requirement to adhere to the updated provisions of the Act.

The court concluded that Mr Quall's application did not meet the requirements of the new section 61 of the Native Title Act, as he failed to assert the necessary authorisation. Despite the application being lodged before the amendments, the act of amendment meant that Mr Quall had to comply with the updated legislative framework. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Quall's application for a determination of native title. The court also reserved the question of costs.