Stock v State of Western Australia
Case
•
[2014] FCA 179
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stock v State of Western Australia [2014] FCA 179
[2014] FCA 179
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Stock v State of Western Australia [2014] FCA 179, the Federal Court of Australia dealt with an interlocutory application to replace the current applicants in two native title determination claimant applications, WAD6280/1998 and WAD196/2013. The current applicants were David Stock, Gordon Yuline, Raymond Drage, Victor Parker, and Billy Cadigan. The proposed replacement applicants were David Stock, Raymond Drage, Victor Parker, Billy Cadigan, and Leonard Stream. The application was brought under section 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and required the court to determine whether the replacement applicant was comprised of members of the claim group, whether Mr Yuline was no longer authorised by the claim group, whether the replacement applicant was authorised by the claim group, and whether it was appropriate to make such an order.
The court found that the replacement applicant was comprised of members of the claim group. The court also found that Mr Yuline was no longer authorised by the claim group to make the applications and deal with matters arising in relation to them, based on evidence from several affidavits. The court rejected Mr Yuline's affidavit, which did not affect the weight of the other evidence. The court accepted that the replacement applicant was authorised by the claim group to make the applications and deal with matters arising in relation to them. The court exercised its discretion under section 66B(2) of the NTA and made the orders sought by the replacement applicant.
In summary, the court granted the interlocutory application to replace the current applicants with the replacement applicant in the two native title determination claimant applications. The court also ordered that the heading in the applications be amended to reflect the names of the replacement applicant and that service of the interlocutory application and supporting documentation on any person other than the first respondent be dispensed with, but that the applicant notify the other respondents of the making of the order by email communication or post as soon as possible.
The court found that the replacement applicant was comprised of members of the claim group. The court also found that Mr Yuline was no longer authorised by the claim group to make the applications and deal with matters arising in relation to them, based on evidence from several affidavits. The court rejected Mr Yuline's affidavit, which did not affect the weight of the other evidence. The court accepted that the replacement applicant was authorised by the claim group to make the applications and deal with matters arising in relation to them. The court exercised its discretion under section 66B(2) of the NTA and made the orders sought by the replacement applicant.
In summary, the court granted the interlocutory application to replace the current applicants with the replacement applicant in the two native title determination claimant applications. The court also ordered that the heading in the applications be amended to reflect the names of the replacement applicant and that service of the interlocutory application and supporting documentation on any person other than the first respondent be dispensed with, but that the applicant notify the other respondents of the making of the order by email communication or post as soon as possible.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Authorisation by Claim Group
-
Replacement of Applicants
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Farrer on behalf of the Ngarrawanji Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia [2019] FCA 655
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Ward v Northern Territory
[2002] FCA 171
Ward v Northern Territory
[2002] FCA 171