Weribone on behalf of the Mandandanji People v State of Queensland

The Mandandanji People, represented by Weribone, were involved in a dispute over native title rights and the management of assets and entitlements derived from agreements under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The dispute involved competing applications for orders to replace the current applicant, Queensland South Native Title Services Limited, under section 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The legal issues before the court included whether the procedural requirements for convening meetings of the native title claim group under section 251B of the Act had been met, specifically whether the notices of business to be conducted at the first meeting were adequate, and whether the second meeting was procedurally flawed due to defects in the authorisation from the first meeting, among other procedural concerns. Additionally, the court had to decide whether it could grant an interlocutory injunction without an undertaking as to damages in this context.

The court found that the notices for the first meeting under section 251B of the Act did not give fair and specific notice of the particular business to be considered, particularly the addition of a further apical ancestor, Dolly Clark. This invalidated the first meeting and, by extension, the subsequent meetings that were based on its authorisation. The court also determined that the interests of justice and the public interest justified making interlocutory orders to secure and protect the assets and entitlements obtained under the status of an applicant to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the native title claim group ultimately entitled, provided that third parties had the right to apply to vary or vacate the orders. The special circumstances of the case, including the protection of assets and the need for a status quo pending a final determination, justified the court's decision to order an interlocutory injunction without requiring an undertaking as to damages.

The court made several orders to protect the assets held by the applicant and those derived from agreements under the Act. These included requiring any monetary benefits to be paid to the Registrar of the Federal Court to be held for the benefit of the native title claim group. Additionally, the court dismissed the applications filed on 27 October 2011 and 25 November 2011, and ordered mediation to propose a replacement applicant and negotiate any consequential case management orders. The proceedings were stood over to allow for mediation regarding the orders made to protect the assets.