Case: Williams v Grant [2004] FCAFC 178
Outcome: referred to
It is common ground that any order on the motion would be an interlocutory order, so that ordinary principles governing summary dismissal of a proceeding should apply. That is, an application under s 84C should be approached with caution and should be allowed only where a clear case for summary dismissal has been made: Williams v Grant [2004] FCAFC 178 at [48] - [49] per Lander J (with whom North and Dowsett JJ agreed); Bodney v Bropho [2004] FCAFC 226 ; (2004) 140 FCR 77 at 89 [51] per Stone J. The general approach, therefore, is consistent with the approach of Courts in other applications to summarily dismiss proceedings, namely that they should be dismissed only in very clear cases: Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner [1949] HCA 1 ; (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 per Dixon J; General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129. As in Williams v Grant at [84] and [87] per Lander J, the first applicants seeking to strike out the Town of Batchelor No 2 application under s 84C have the onus and responsibility of establishing that the second applicants were not authorised by the native title claim group to bring that claim, and so to make out a very clear case of want of authorisation, or a clear failure to comply with one or other of the requirements of ss 61 , 61A or 62 . 15 Section 84C(2) requires the Court to consider an application under s 84C(1) before any further proceedings take place in relation to the main application. But that does not require the Court to hear and determine the question as to whether the application has, in fact, been authorised as required by s 251B in all cases. It is only where the application is obviously without merit, that is, where there is no realistic prospect on the material before the Court of the authorisation being shown to have existed at the time it was purportedly granted, that an order will be made summarily dismissing or striking out the main application under s 84C. Sometimes an applicant faced with an application under s 84C may seek to amend the application to cure an identified deficiency (as discussed by Lander J in Williams v Grant at [57]). Where the application is not clearly without merit, so that it is not dismissed summarily or struck out, the Court may consider directing that an application under s 84C be heard and determined at the same time as the main application. That is a course of action which Wilcox J in Bodney v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 890 at [45] suggested. The Court may also consider directing that the question of authorisation be heard and determined as a separate question, and be heard and determined prior to the hearing of the main application, under O 29 of the Federal Court Rules . That is a matter for each particular case and its particular circumstances. Whether such an order were appropriate would depend upon the extent to which there would be an overlap in the evidence likely to be called relating to authorisation and on the main application and a range of factors. The apparent attraction of expedition and economy may be misleading. Very often, the proposed evidence of authorisation is to be given by persons who also will give "connection" evidence and evidence of traditional laws and customs. There are often sound reasons in such circumstances why the separate trial of issues should not be ordered: Rocklea Spinning Mills Pty Ltd v Anti-Dumping Authority (1995) 56 FCR 406 ; Energy Australia v Australian Energy Ltd [2001] FCA 1049 at [8] per Stone J. There are also countervailing considerations of potential delay through splitting of issues and the separate processes which follow that course: Tallglen Pty Ltd v Pay TV Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 130. So, not uncommonly, as occurred in both Risk and Harrington-Smith (referred to above) the issue of authorisation was heard and determined as part of the principal hearing of the main application.