Tigan v Western Australia

In Tigan v State of Western Australia, the Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of a notice of change of solicitors filed on behalf of the Mayala People, a native title claim group, without the consent of all the named persons as applicants. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), specifically sections 61, 62A, 66B, 85A(2), 190A, and 253, and whether the claim group could act in its own right without the consent of all members or if decisions could be made by majority. The Court had to decide if the claim group could unilaterally change solicitors and if the term "jointly" in section 61(2) of the Act allowed for majority decision-making.

Justice Gilmour found that the claim group could not act independently of the named applicants to change solicitors without following the statutory process outlined in the Act. The Court held that only the named applicant, as defined in section 61(1), had the authority to deal with all matters arising under the Act concerning the native title application. This authority was exclusive and could not be exercised by the claim group as a whole. The Court emphasized that the term "jointly" in section 61(2) meant that the named applicants must act in concert, not separately or severally. The decision in Ankamuthi People v State of Queensland (2002) 121 FCR 68 was followed, reinforcing that the claim group's decisions should not circumvent the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the notice of change of solicitor filed by Western Legal was invalid as it was not authorized by the applicant as required by the Act. The Court ordered the Registrar to remove the notice from the court file and return it to Western Legal. The issue of costs was reserved for further argument.