Background
The Boonwurrung native title proceeding was brought by Carolyn Maria Briggs and Sylvia Fay Muir. Following the Federal Court’s determination of separate questions in Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung People v State of Victoria (No 2) [2025] FCA 279, an interlocutory application sought to amend the Form 1 claim-group description to reflect the apical ancestors identified in that decision.
The proposed description included descendants of Louisa Briggs, Elizabeth Maynard, Marjorie Munro and Eliza Nowan, provided they identify as Boonwurrung or Bunurong. It also sought, under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), to replace the current applicants with eight people authorised at meetings held on 28 and 29 March 2026. The original applicants opposed the self-identification wording, contending it did not conform with the earlier judgment, was not authorised, and followed inadequate notice.
The Court’s Holding
Bennett J made the interlocutory orders. Her Honour held that the amended claim-group description was not precluded by Briggs (No 2): the prior reasons did not prevent the claim group from using the proposed formulation, and the composition of a Form 1 claim group may be altered before determination if statutory and procedural requirements are met.
The Court also held that the 29 March meeting validly authorised the amendment. The notice foreshadowed the self-identification requirement, the resolution was clear in its context, and the meeting process gave those entitled to participate a reasonable opportunity to do so. Bennett J was satisfied that the original applicants were no longer authorised and that the eight replacement applicants were authorised by the claim group, warranting an order under s 66B.
Key Takeaways
- A native title claim group may amend its Form 1 description before determination where the amendment is properly authorised.
- Meeting notices are assessed practically, rather than by a standard of technical perfection.
- Under s 66B, the Court will give effect to the claim group’s objectively ascertained intention when replacing applicants.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that earlier findings about traditional laws and customs do not necessarily freeze the wording of a claimant application before the final native title determination. Claim groups can adapt their formal description where the statutory authorisation process is satisfied.
It also illustrates the evidentiary importance of meeting notices, minutes, voting records and resolutions in applications to alter claim-group membership or replace authorised applicants.