Background
The Marlinyu Ghoorlie native title claim covered approximately 89,797 square kilometers in Western Australia’s Western Goldfields region. Following a lengthy trial conducted between February 2023 and March 2024, the Federal Court delivered judgment on 19 December 2025 (Dimer No 6) answering separate questions under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court determined that native title exists in the claim area and is held by the Marlinyu Ghoorlie claim group, comprising those descended from four apical ancestors and identified as Karlamaya, Kapurn and/or Karlaku peoples.
The judgment rejected competing claims by the Karratjibbin people and the Cooper respondents, who contended they held native title rights in parts of the claim area under Western Desert law and customs. The court found these claimants had failed to establish their connection to the land under traditional laws and customs at the time of sovereignty.
After the judgment was delivered, three individuals—Glenys Yarran and Reginald Yarran (claiming as Ballardong people), Desarae Bennell (claiming as Pindiini), and Rosanne Dimer (claiming as Kallardoo)—filed interlocutory applications or new native title determination applications seeking to assert competing rights in the same area. Bennell and Dimer also filed separate native title claims (WAD 46 of 2026 and WAD 60 of 2026) claiming different groups held native title in the eastern part of the trial area.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court held that all applications seeking to re-litigate native title questions in the Marlinyu Ghoorlie claim area constituted an abuse of process. O’Bryan J emphasised that the Native Title Act establishes a foundational principle: there must be a single judicial determination of native title per area. This principle is reflected in sections 61A and 68 of the Act, which prohibit applications for another determination of native title in relation to an area where an approved determination already exists, except for applications to revoke or vary that determination or appeals.
The court found that the interlocutory applications filed by Glenys Yarran and Reginald Yarran to be joined as respondents were dismissed as an abuse of process. Similarly, Rosanne Dimer’s application seeking a review of the authorization of the native title claim was dismissed. The two new native title determination applications filed by Bennell and Dimer in respect of the eastern part of the trial area were also dismissed on the grounds they sought to re-litigate issues already finally determined by the court following a trial. The court noted that parties are bound by determinations of separate questions unless overturned on appeal, and it would be contrary to the principles of finality and justice to allow a second trial of those same questions.
The court acknowledged the unrepresented status of the applicants but stated that requesting a further trial was “such an affront to concepts of fairness and justice” that they ought to be aware their applications were unreasonable. The court ordered that Sharon Dimer and Rosanne Dimer cease to be parties to the Marlinyu Ghoorlie proceeding, and imposed costs orders against those who brought the interlocutory applications and new claims.
Key Takeaways
- Once a native title determination has been made following a trial, competing native title applications covering the same area cannot proceed as separate proceedings; they constitute an abuse of process.
- The Native Title Act’s single-determination-per-area principle, reinforced by sections 67 and 68, protects finality and ensures efficient administration of justice in native title litigation.
- Answers to separately determined questions in native title proceedings are final determinations from which parties cannot re-litigate unless they successfully appeal, even if unrepresented.
- Parties without legal representation cannot escape obligations of procedural fairness; applications that are manifestly unreasonable may still be dismissed as an abuse of process.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural architecture of the Native Title Act by preventing duplicate and wasteful litigation. Native title determinations are expensive, resource-intensive proceedings that require extensive evidence of traditional connection to land. Allowing competing claims to be re-litigated after final judgment would undermine the statutory scheme, exhaust the resources of courts and parties, and delay finality in determining Aboriginal peoples’ rights to land. The decision protects not only the successful claimant group (the Marlinyu Ghoorlie claim group) but also the integrity of the native title determination process itself.
The judgment also illustrates the tension between accommodating unrepresented litigants and maintaining procedural discipline. While O’Bryan J acknowledged the applicants’ lack of legal representation, the court made clear that fundamental principles of finality and justice are not waived for lay litigants. This approach balances access to justice against the need for certainty and finality in a complex statutory regime.