Roe v State of Western Australia (No 2)

In the case of Roe v State of Western Australia (No 2), the application was to replace the current applicant in a native title claim under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicants sought to replace Joseph Roe and Cyril Shaw with a new group of six individuals, arguing that they were authorised by the native title claim group to do so. The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed applicants were descendants of the apical ancestors of the claim group, whether the authorisation resolution was properly constructed, and whether there was a conflict of interests that would affect the exercise of the court's discretion under s 66B of the NTA.

The court determined that the proposed applicants were indeed members of the native title claim group and were authorised to replace the current applicants. The court found that the authorisation meeting held on 3 August 2010 was valid and that the proposed applicants were descendants of the apical ancestors. The court further concluded that there was no conflict of interest that would prevent the exercise of its discretion to grant the order under s 66B. The court held that the proposed applicants had the necessary authorisation from the claim group and that the requirements of the statute were met.

The court made an order replacing Joseph Roe and Cyril Shaw with Rita Augustine, Anthony Watson, and Ignatius Paddy, jointly representing the Goolarabooloo and Jabirr Jabirr People. The court also amended the heading of the application to reflect the new applicants and stayed the execution of judgment for seven days to allow for any potential appeals or further applications.