Editors --- "Noble v Murgha [2005] FCAFC 211 - Case Summary" [2005] AUIndigLawRpr 65; (2005) 9(4) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 26

• NOBLE v MURGHA
• Facts:
• Held, dismissing special leave to appeal or dismissing the appeal:

---

NOBLE v MURGHA

Federal Court of Australia (North, Weinberg and Greenwood JJ)

30 September 2005

[2005] FCAFC 211

Native Title — Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) — action taken under s 251B — removal from a native title claim group under s66B — decision making process demanded by s251B(b)

Facts:

Three individuals, associated with three native title claim groups, were the named applicant in a native title claim described as the Combined Gunggandji claim. The State of Queensland had previously offered to settle the matter, and one of the individuals, the applicant in this matter, was opposed to settlement. Two of the three individuals, the first respondents in this matter, were in favour of settlement.

A community meeting of the Gunggandji people was held to attempt to settle the disagreement between the applicant and the first respondents. A member of the National Native Title Tribunal was present at the meeting and explained that the group needed to authorise persons to act for them under s 251B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’). The Tribunal member also described the process that could be followed to remove an individual from a claim under s 66B of the NTA.

The meeting agreed that the elders should resolve the dispute. The elders decided that the applicant should be removed from the native title claim group. The decision was accepted and respected by the attendees of the community meeting.

Accordingly, Dowsett J gave an interlocutory judgment on 31 March 2005 ordering that the applicant be removed from the Combined Gunggandji claim, pursuant to s 66B of the NTA. The applicant sought special leave to appeal from this judgment, and in the alternative, sought to appeal the judgment as a matter of right.

Held, dismissing special leave to appeal or dismissing the appeal:

1. Section 251B(b) of the NTA does not require there to be a system of decision making, separately agreed and adopted, before the members of a native title claim group can validly resolve to remove a person from the group: [34].

2. Justice Dowsett’s failure to provide detailed reasons for his conclusion does not evince any appealable error: [35].