Background In February and March 2015, the Noongar people held authorisation meetings for the the Wagyl Kaip & Southern Noongar, the Ballardong People, the Whadjul People, and the South West Boojarah #2 ILUAs (the ILUAs). These four ILUAs, along with the Yued and Gnaala Karla ILUAs which were not contested, together make up the Noongar Settlement. At the meetings, the people who held or claimed to hold native title over the relevant areas (the native title claim group) adopted a majority decision-making process, with no person having a right to veto. In this way, a decision was made to authorise any, but not necessarily all, of the people who comprised the RNTC to sign the ILUA as representative parties for the native title claim group. The applicants in these four proceedings, except for Naomi Smith, were each members of a RNTC. Naomi Smith is a member of the Whadjuk People native title claim group. There were different reasons why a member of each RNTC had not signed an ILUA. Some, like McGlade, had refused. But in the case of the Whadjuk ILUA, an additional issue was raised because one person was incapacitated and unable to sign while another had only signed after the application to register had been made. The common question in relation to all the ILUAs was whether an ILUA is registrable without all members having signed it. SWALSC authorised the applications to register the ILUAs under s 251 of the NTA. The ILUAs are not yet registered. These proceedings were originally commenced in the High Court and then remitted to the Full Federal Court on 17 February 2016. Details of Judgment The primary issue for the Court was whether an ILUA that has not been signed by all of the people who comprise the RNTC is registrable. In a joint judgment, North and Barker JJ noted the textual ambiguities in the NTA. However, because the definition of a RNTC in s 253 of the NTA refers to the s 61(2) definition of a native title 'applicant' as being the individual members jointly, this means that a RNTC is a singular entity that may be comprised of multiple people whose names appear on the Register as the 'applicant' [234]. Ultimately, 'in order to construe the provisions of the NTA in a harmonious manner, the reference to all registered native title claimants in s 24CD(2)(a) must refer to each registered native title claimant, if there is more than one, in the sense of the entity defined by s 253 [234]. It was on this basis that the Court rejected the argument that the broader native title claim group had authorised the signing of the ILUAs at the meetings by a majority of the RNTC. All the named members of a RNTC are required to sign the ILUA. If the claim group wants an ILUA to be signed, but a member refuses to sign it, then the claim group must remove that person under the provisions in s 66B of the NTA [245]. This may be an inconvenient outcome, North and Barker JJ said, but it is a matter for Parliament as to whether the NTA should provide some other mechanism, apart from s 66B, for responding to circumstances where a member of the RNTC refuses to sign an agreement [265]. It followed that the Court declined to follow Bygrave, instead holding that '[w]hile the claim group's authority is unassailable when it comes to the authorisation of persons to lodge a claimant application and in deciding whether an applicant should be replaced, and in authorising an indigenous land use agreement for registration, the claim group does not have the power otherwise to alter the requirements of the NTA governing who should be parties to, and sign, an area agreement' [267]. Their Honours also held that an ILUA is effective as long as all members of a RNTC have signed before the process of registration is completed [271]. In a separate judgment, agreeing with North and Barker JJ, Mortimer J added that requiring the unanimous action of the members of a RNTC to voluntarily accept the rights and obligations associated with being a party to an ILUA is in line with the principles of the general law of contract [403]. | 
