Saunders on Behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland

In the matter of Saunders on behalf of the Bigambul People against the State of Queensland, the Federal Court was presented with a series of procedural issues pertaining to the joinder of parties and the handling of strike-out and adjournment applications within the context of a native title claim. The court was asked to determine whether certain parties were already part of the proceedings under specific provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and whether other individual native title holders should be joined to the case. Furthermore, the court considered whether the timing of a joinder application could be considered before the resolution of a strike-out application, and whether the procedural issues involved in the strike-out application were sufficient for the purposes of the joinder application.

The court examined the statutory provisions under sections 84(3)(a) and 84(5) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to ascertain whether the prescribed bodies and individual native title holders were already parties to the proceeding, and if not, whether they should be joined. The court held that the prescribed bodies and individual native title holders were not already parties and thus should be joined. The court also concluded that the joinder application could be considered before the strike-out application, provided that the procedural issues involved in the strike-out application were sufficiently addressed. Additionally, the court considered the practical implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scheduling of hearings, and granted the applicant's request for an adjournment to a virtual hearing.

The Federal Court allowed the applications for joinder and set aside certain earlier orders. The court ordered the joinder of specific individual native title holders as parties to the proceeding and set aside previous orders that were no longer applicable. The court further directed the parties to file and serve specific affidavits and written submissions by set dates, and ordered that certain matters be listed and heard together, including the strike-out application and the 83A application. The court also varied the date of a previously ordered hearing and listed the 83A application for hearing together with the strike-out application on a specified date. Finally, the court reserved costs and granted liberty to apply for further orders as necessary.