Nyangumarta Warrarn Aboriginal Corporation v Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation - Injunction Dismissed

Original Word Document (91.7 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Nyangumarta Warrarn Aboriginal Corporation v Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation [2026] FCA 480

| File number(s): | WAD 119 of 2026 |

| Judgment of: | VANDONGEN J |

| Date of judgment: | 21 April 2026 |

| Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for final injunction restraining calling of general meeting - whether general meeting called for proper purpose - whether general meeting to be held at a reasonable time and place - application dismissed |

| Legislation: | Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) ss 60-5, 193-1, 198-1, 201-1, 201-55, 201-60, 201-65, 201-145, 576-25

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1324 |

| Cases cited: | Australian Innovation Ltd v Petrovsky (1996) 21 ACSR 218

Hunter v State of Western Australia [2009] FCA 654

Low (Liquidator) v Hughes (No 2) [2026] FCA 71 |

| Division: | General Division |

| Registry: | Western Australia |

| National Practice Area: | Native Title |

| Number of paragraphs: | 70 |

| Date of hearing: | 20 April 2026 |

| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr A Mumford |

| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Houston Legal & Consultants |

| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr M Holler |

| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation |

| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent did not appear |
ORDERS

| WAD 119 of 2026 |

| BETWEEN: | NYANGUMARTA WARRARN ABORIGINAL CORPORATION

Applicant | |
| AND: | YAMATJI MARLPA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION

First Respondent

RENA TINKER

Second Respondent | |

| order made by: | VANDONGEN J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 21 April 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant's application for injunctive relief under s 576-25 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) is dismissed.

2. The question of costs is to be adjourned.

3. There be liberty to apply upon giving 24 hours' notice.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

VANDONGEN J:

1 The applicant, the Nyangumarta Warrarn Aboriginal Corporation (NWAC), is the prescribed body corporate that holds native title rights on behalf of the Nyangumarta common law holders of native title as determined in Hunter v State of Western Australia [2009] FCA 654. The first respondent, the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC), is the native title representative body for the Pilbara region of Western Australia which provides executive and corporate services to NWAC under a services agreement.

2 On 25 March 2026, YMAC was contacted by a director of NWAC, the second respondent, Ms Rena Tinker, who advised that she wished to call a general meeting of NWAC. Rule 7.3.1 of the NWAC rule book provides that a director may call a general meeting of NWAC, reflecting the replaceable rule in s 201-1 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) (CATSI Act).

3 YMAC prepared and sent by post a notice of a 'special general meeting' to the registered members of NWAC on 26 March 2026. That notice provided that a 'special general meeting' would be held at 9.30 am on 22 April 2026 at the Bidyadanga Community Resource Centre. The notice also provided that the special business to be dealt with at the meeting was the removal and election of directors.

4 By an urgent application before the start of proceedings filed on 17 April 2026, NWAC seeks urgent injunctive relief under s 576-25 of the CATSI Act against Ms Tinker and against YMAC. More specifically, NWAC seeks an order restraining Ms Tinker from calling a general meeting at the Bidyadanga Community Resource Centre on 22 April 2026. It also seeks an order restraining YMAC from 'convening or assisting to convene a special general meeting of [NWAC] in the Bidyadanga community on 22 April 2026'.

5 NWAC's application came before me on 20 April 2026. By that time, the application had been served on YMAC and YMAC was represented by counsel at the hearing. However, the application had not been served on Ms Tinker. Counsel for NWAC submitted that the application should proceed against Ms Tinker on an ex parte basis, given its urgency. As will be seen, it is unnecessary to say anything further about the appropriateness of proceeding against Ms Tinker on that basis.

6 Earlier today I dismissed NWAC's application and made orders to that effect. To explain why I reached that conclusion, it is necessary to begin by identifying the legal basis on which NWAC relied for the relief that it sought.

Legal basis for relief sought by NWAC

7 As counsel who appeared for NWAC at the hearing of the application for urgent injunctive relief confirmed in both his written and oral submissions, NWAC relies on s 576-25(1) of the CATSI Act as the source of the Court's power to grant the urgent injunctive relief sought. That provision is in the following relevant terms:

576 - 25 Injunctions

(1)    If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct that constituted, constitutes or would constitute:

(a)    a contravention of this Act; or

(b)    attempting to contravene this Act; or

(c)    aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a person to contravene this Act; or

(d)    inducing or attempting to induce, whether by threats, promises or otherwise, a person to contravene this Act; or

(e)    being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by a person of this Act; or

(f)     conspiring with others to contravene this Act;

the Court may, on the application of the Registrar, or of a person whose interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct, grant an injunction, on such terms as the Court thinks appropriate, restraining the first-mentioned person from engaging in the conduct and, if in the opinion of the Court it is desirable to do so, requiring that person to do any act or thing.

8 Counsel indicated that as NWAC essentially sought final relief he placed no reliance on s 576-25(4), which confers on the Court a power to grant an interim injunction pending determination of an application under s 576-25(1).

9 It may be seen that s 576-25(1) is in relevantly identical terms to s 1324(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). As I recently noted in Low (Liquidator) v Hughes (No 2) [2026] FCA 71 at [15]:

[Section] 1324(1) operates where a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct that constituted, constitutes or would constitute at least one of the forms of conduct in paras (a) to (f) of that section. That conduct includes conduct amounting to a contravention of the Corporations Act (s 1324(1)(a)), but it also includes, relevantly, conduct that amounts to 'aiding' and 'abetting' a person to contravene the Corporations Act (s 1324(1)(c)), as well as 'being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to' such a contravention (s 1324(1)(e)). Proof that a person has, is, or is proposing to engage in such conduct enlivens a Court's power to grant the injunctive relief referred to in s 1324(1), against that person.

10 As I understood the submissions of counsel for the applicant, NWAC's case is that Ms Tinker and YWAC engaged, are engaging or are proposing to engage in conduct that constituted, constitutes or would constitute:

(a) a contravention of the CATSI Act (s 576-25(1)(a));

(b) an attempt to contravene the CATSI Act (s 576-25(1)(b)); or

(c) in the case of YWAC only, being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention by Ms Tinker of the CATSI Act (s 576-25(1)(e)).

11 It is important to identify with precision the conduct on which NWAC relies to engage the operation of s 576-25(1). Not only is it necessary to specifically identify that conduct to determine whether, for the purposes of s 576-25(1), it 'constituted, constitutes or would constitute' conduct that satisfies any one of the criteria in paras (a) to (f) of s 576-25(1), such identified conduct will also determine the scope of any injunction that may be granted under that provision: Low at [27].

12 NWAC claims that Ms Tinker's conduct of calling a general meeting of NWAC amounted to a contravention, or attempted contravention, of the CATSI Act. More specifically, it is submitted that, when calling the general meeting under s 201-1 of the CATSI Act, Ms Tinker was required to, but failed to comply with ss 201-55 and 201-60 of the CATSI Act.

13 Section 201-1 provides as follows:

A director of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation may call a general meeting of the corporation.

14 This provision is referred to in the CATSI Act as a 'replaceable rule'. Section 60-5 of the CATSI Act provides that a provision of a section of a replaceable rule that applies to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation can be modified or replaced by the corporation's constitution. In the case of NWAC, r 7.3.1 of the NWAC rule book reflects s 201-1 of the CATSI Act.

15 Sections 201-55 and 201-60 of the CATSI Act are in the following terms:

201‑55 Purpose

A general meeting must be held for a proper purpose.

201‑60 Time and place for general meeting

A general meeting must be held at a reasonable time and place.

16 NWAC also claims that YMAC failed to comply with those provisions or that it was knowingly concerned in Ms Tinker's contraventions of the provisions.

17 It is important to note that it forms no part of NWAC's case that the notice of the general meeting, or that the exercise of power by Ms Tinker in s 201-1 and r 7.3.1, was invalid because of some procedural or other irregularity. In that regard, NWAC did not seek relief under s 576-15 of the CATSI Act for the purposes of invalidating a procedural irregularity in connection with the calling of the meeting, as was the case, for example, in Australian Innovation Ltd v Petrovsky (1996) 21 ACSR 218. NWAC also did not contend that by exercising the power in s 201-1 and r 7.3.1 Ms Tinker contravened or attempted to contravene any other provision of the CATSI Act, including any of the provisions that impose statutory duties on the directors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations.

18 Having identified the legal basis on which NWAC relies in support of its claim for urgent injunctive relief, it is then convenient to summarise the evidence on which NWAC and YMAC rely.

The evidence

19 NWAC relies on two affidavits. The first of those affidavits was affirmed on 17 April 2026 by Mr Charlie Wright, a senior Nyangumarta man and Chair of the board of NWAC, who was elected to that position on 27 March 2026.

20 Mr Wright says that he received email notice of the general meeting on 27 March 2026 and that this was the first time he learned that the meeting had been called. Mr Wright says that the notice he received did not provide any information about the identity of the director who had purported to call the meeting. According to Mr Wright, even at the time he affirmed his affidavit, he was unsure who had called the meeting.

21 In his affidavit Mr Wright expressed some surprise at the stated purpose of the general meeting, namely, to remove the directors who were elected as recently as November 2025. He says that he is not aware of any reason why the directors should be removed. Mr Wright also provides some evidence of his engagement with YWAC about the meeting.

22 As I understand it, NWAC places particular reliance on Mr Wright's evidence about the time and place of the general meeting called by Ms Tinker. In that regard, Mr Wright says that the board of NWAC met on 27 March 2026 to review the services being provided to NWAC by YMAC, and to act on some complaints by members and directors of NWAC about those services. Mr Wright says that it was not long after that meeting that he received the notice of the general meeting to be held on 22 April 2026. He also says that both he and the Chief Executive Officer of NWAC decided to respond to YWAC and ask that the meeting not be convened because the time and place of the meeting was not appropriate, and because NWAC had not made any decision to convene a general meeting.

23 Mr Wright then says, in three paragraphs that appear to be the critical evidence on which MWAC relies in support of its application for urgent interlocutory relief:

18.    I think that the Community Resource Centre in Bidyadanga would not be an appropriate location for the Meeting for the following reasons:

i.     the venue would fit about thirty people, and it is the largest venue in Bidyadanga. Usually over one-hundred members attend NWAC's general meetings;

ii.     about fifty to sixty members of NWAC live in both Broome and Port Hedland, and those members would have to travel to Bidyadanga to attend the Meeting. I am aware that current fuel rations in the Bidyadanga community strictly limit the amount of fuel the community can make available per person, meaning members travelling to the meeting may not be able to fuel up enough for the return trip to Broome or Port Hedland and this would also use up the limited fuel for Bidyadanga residents; and

iii.     there is no overnight accommodation available in Bidyadanga that could be booked for any members travelling to the meeting. Bidyadanga is about a four and half hour drive from Port Hedland and about a two-hour drive from Broome.

1.     I think that the time of the meeting is not appropriate because my sister, Janie Wright, and I and our family, as well as other members of NWAC, are going through a period of sorry business. My sister's son recently passed away, and his funeral will be held on 21 May 2026 in Broome. In Nyangumarta culture, our family have a time of sorry business, we can't do any normal business until we bury that boy, because we have to have time to grieve. That is a very important custom in our culture. I also don't say that boy's name out of respect as part of that custom …. [A copy of the funeral notice for Mr Wright's nephew is annexed to the affidavit].

2.     NWAC general meetings are normally held in the community centre in South Hedland, which is large enough to accommodate the number of members who normally attend. I am not aware of a general meeting of NWAC ever having been held in Bidyadanga.

24 NWAC also relies on an affidavit of Mr Robert Grant Houston affirmed on 19 April 2026. Mr Houston is the Managing Director and Principal Lawyer at Houston Legal & Consultants Pty Limited, an incorporated legal practice which has been engaged by NWAC to act on its behalf, including in these proceedings.

25 Mr Houston gives evidence of the relevant notice of general meeting, as well as evidence concerning his firm's engagement with the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations and with YMAC. Mr Houston also says that he has attended meetings at the Bidyadanga Community Resource Centre previously in his capacity as solicitor for the Karajarri Traditional Lands Association (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC (KTLA) for whom he has acted for over 10 years. He says that this venue is largely used as a conference room and would comfortably accommodate up to 20 persons but that he is not aware of the venue being used for a native title general meeting. According to Mr Houston, such general meetings typically attract a much larger attendance than 20 persons.

26 Mr Houston also says that he has confirmed with the relevant manager within KTLA that there are currently $50 per person fuel restrictions in place at Bidyadanga, and has provided a copy of an email from the KTLA in that respect.

27 YMAC relies on an affidavit of Mr Nicholas Edward Kimber dated 20 April 2026. Mr Kimber is YMAC's Chief Financial Officer and acting Chief Executive Officer.

28 Mr Kimber says that in the past three years, YMAC has, in performing its obligations under its service agreement with NWAC, coordinated and facilitated more than 30 meetings of NWAC in accordance with its rule book and the CATSI Act. He says that the only meetings YMAC has not been asked to organise are two directors' meetings that were held on 27 March 2026 and 8 April 2026, respectively.

29 According to Mr Kimber, Ms Tinker contacted YMAC on 25 March 2026 and requested that there be a 'special general meeting' of NWAC to be held at Bidyadanga, where NWAC general meetings have sometimes previously been held. When Ms Tinker made this request, she provided a document signed by several NWAC members stating that they wanted a general meeting to take place. Mr Kimber says that a general meeting was then called on the basis that a director of NWAC can call such a meeting under r 7.3.1 of the NWAC rule book.

30 Mr Kimber gives evidence that notices for the general meeting were prepared and sent by post on 26 March 2026 to the 183 registered members of NWAC. He also gives evidence that Ms Tinker did not want her name or the document signed by the members released to the other directors, and that she only consented to her name being released as the director who called the meeting on Friday 17 April 2026, which is when YMAC provided that information to the NWAC board.

31 Mr Kimber then sets out some information about the location of NWAC's previous general meetings. He says that more than 30 meetings have been held in the last three years, all of which were managed, coordinated and facilitated by YMAC. According to Mr Kimber, meetings have primarily been held in Port Hedland, but members' meetings have, in previous years, been held in Bidyadanga Community Resource Centre. Mr Kimber says that he has personally attended an annual general meeting there.

32 Mr Kimber says that Bidyadanga is a midway point between Broome and Port Hedland, which are both places where several members reside. He estimates that Bidyadanga is approximately 200km from Broome and 400km from Port Hedland. According to Mr Kimber, of the total 183 NWAC members, approximately 67 live in Bidyadanga, 17 live in Broome, 59 live in Port Hedland and 40 live in various other locations. According to Mr Kimber, Ms Tinker does not live in Bidyadanga.

33 Mr Kimber also gives evidence about the planning that has been undertaken by YMAC for the general meeting to be held at the Bidyadanga Community Resource Centre.

34 He says that NWAC pays its members a travel allowance, which is facilitated by YMAC. He also says that YMAC has organised for at least four and as many as six security guards to be in attendance at the general meeting and has informed Western Australia Police of the meeting.

35 According to Mr Kimber, over 70 NWAC members are expected to attend the meeting. Accordingly, YMAC has organised marquees to accommodate members for the meeting which, together with catering arrangements, will be set up the day before the meeting.

36 Mr Kimber says that the meeting will commence at 9.30 am. He says that this is a standard time for general meetings and allows enough time for business to be conducted with appropriate breaks.

37 Mr Kimber estimates that the cost of the meeting will be approximately $62,000, which will be made up of travel and accommodation allowances, expenses outlaid for catering and venue hire, security and YMAC staff time, travel, flights, car hire and accommodation. He says that some of these costs have already been incurred. Further, Mr Kimber says that NWAC provides assistance to members for fuel, accommodation, meals and incidentals to attend at a meeting.

38 Mr Kimber also says that YMAC does not have phone numbers for all NWAC members and a large number of members are only contactable by post, which is the standard method of contact between NWAC and its members. According to Mr Kimber, if the meeting is postponed or cancelled at this stage, the members of the organisation who are travelling to the meeting will suffer hardship in that they will not know that the meeting has been cancelled or postponed and will travel to the meeting and incur costs without any ability to recover them. Further, NWAC will incur the costs of arranging the meeting and any costs which it is unable to recover owing to the lateness of any postponement or cancellation.

39 Mr Kimber also gives evidence about fuel restrictions, stating that no such restrictions for Broome, Port Hedland or Bidyadanga have recently been notified on the Western Australian Government's FuelWatch website and that there are no notifications of unavailability of fuel in and around Broome, Port Hedland or Bidyadanga. He says that no other NWAC members, aside from Mr Wright via his affidavit, have contacted YMAC to express concerns about fuel availability or restrictions.

40 Mr Kimber says that there are several fuel stations located for ongoing and return trips to Bidyadanga. He also says that the general manager of NWAC, Mr Ben Puglisi, has advised him that there is sufficient fuel at the Bidyadanga store and that they have allowed purchases of fuel sufficient to travel to Sandfire Roadhouse or Roebuck Plains Roadhouse which have no restrictions on fuel purchases. An email from Mr Puglisi to that effect is annexed to Mr Kimber's affidavit. According to Mr Kimber, Mr Puglisi made further enquires on the morning of the hearing and provided him with an email from the Chief Executive Officer of Bidyadanga community advising that the community is able to supply fuel for the vehicles.

41 In relation to Mr Wright's concerns about sorry business, Mr Kimber notes that Mr Wright says that he was able to attend two recent meetings. Further, Mr Kimber notes that the funeral does not clash with the scheduled meeting date and that, in any event, sorry business in the past has not prevented general meetings of the corporation from proceeding and that the CATSI Act does not provide for cancellations in the event of sorry business. He says that YMAC has not received a single concern or enquiry from any member, other than has been set out by Mr Wright in his affidavit, about sorry business being an issue concerning the time or place of the general meeting.

42 According to Mr Kimber there is no authority to cancel a general meeting under the NWAC rule book or under the CATSI Act. In any event, he says that YMAC would not now be able to contact all 183 NWAC members in time to cancel the meeting.

43 Finally, Mr Kimber gives evidence about YMAC's role in calling the general meeting. In that context he specifically rejects a submission made on behalf of NWAC that it is possible that the real purpose of the general meeting is to constitute a board that would be likely to decide to continue the service agreement with YMAC.

44 Having summarised the evidence on which the parties rely, it is now necessary to consider the question of whether the urgent injunctive relief sought by NWAC should be granted.

Should NWAC be granted urgent injunctive relief?

45 No explanation was provided by NWAC as to how, on a proper construction of ss 201-55 and 201-60, a director who calls a general meeting under s 201-1 might be said to have contravened or to have attempted to have contravened those provisions. As the terms of ss 201-55 and 201-60 make clear, they are concerned with the holding of a general meeting. Further, as other provisions that appear in Div 201 of Pt 5-2 of the CATSI Act appear to contemplate, it is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation that holds general meetings, not a director who might decide to exercise the power under s 201-1 to call such a meeting: see, for example, ss 201-65, and 201-145(1); see also ss 193-1 and 198-1.

46 In the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of submissions that might assist in arriving at the proper construction of ss 201-55 and 201-60, it is unnecessary to say anything further about that issue. This is because I am, in any event, not satisfied on the evidence before me that NWAC has established that the general meeting called by Ms Tinker will not be held for a proper purpose, contrary to s 201-55, or that the general meeting will not be held at a reasonable time and place, contrary to s 201-60.

47 I will deal with the alleged contraventions or attempted contraventions of the CATSI Act in turn.

The general meeting will not be held for a proper purpose (s 201-55)

48 In its written submissions, NWAC argued that 'it is not possible to know, on the basis of the information currently available to [NWAC], whether the special general meeting is being called for a proper purpose'. In circumstances in which it was for NWAC to establish that Ms Tinker had contravened, or was attempting to contravene s 201-55, that submission was, to say the least, curious.

49 Nevertheless, NWAC appeared to submit that the general meeting called by Ms Tinker will not be held for a proper purpose for the following reasons:

(1) No reasons have been provided to the NWAC directors as to why they should be removed as directors or why the members of NWAC should be required to consider their removal at a general meeting.

(2) Ms Tinker failed to inform the other directors of NWAC before exercising the power to call a general meeting in s 201-1 of the CATSI Act and r 7.3.1 of the NWAC rule book.

(3) As several members of NWAC have signed a petition requesting that a general meeting be held, the process that should have been followed is that a request should have been made to the directors of NWAC under s 201-5 of the CATSI Act, and rr 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 of the NWAC rule book, rather than a director exercising the power under s 201-1 to call a general meeting.

(4) It is 'possible' that the real purpose of the general meeting is to constitute a NWAC board that would decide to continue the service agreement with YMAC.

(5) The process by which the current directors were elected at the 2025 annual general meeting was fair, in accordance with the NWAC rule book and in accordance with the usual process for the election of directors. In those circumstances, if the members wish to change the composition of the board of directors, then they will have an opportunity to do so at the next annual general meeting.

50 In my view, none of those reasons, whether considered in isolation or in combination with each other, justify a conclusion that the general meeting will not be held for a proper purpose, or otherwise contrary to s 201-55.

51 In relation to the first and second reasons, I was not referred to any provision in the CATSI Act or in the NWAC rule book that could be said to impose an obligation on Ms Tinker to inform the other directors before exercising her power under s 201-1 of the CATSI Act and r 7.3.1 of the NWAC rule book to call a general meeting, or to provide the other directors with reasons as to why the business to be conducted at the meeting includes giving consideration to their removal. On that basis I reject these two reasons.

52 As to the third reason on which NWAC relies, the evidence before me suggests that several of its members have signed a petition requesting that a general meeting be held. The language of the petition suggests that the purpose of the requested general meeting is to remove the directors of NWAC who were elected at an annual general meeting in November 2025, and to appoint new directors 'who are more representative of the Nyangumarta community'. The petition also suggests that those who have signed it have concerns about the fact they were unable to attend the annual general meeting because of sorry business and about the manner in which they perceive the current directors are conducting themselves as directors.

53 Sections 201-5 to 201-15 of the CATSI Act, which are reflected in rr 7.3.2 to 7.3.4 of the NWAC rule book, make provision for the procedures that are to be followed upon the request of a required number of members for a general meeting. Under s 201-10 and r 7.3.3, the directors of NWAC may apply to the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations to deny a members' request to call a general meeting. NWAC submits, in effect, that Ms Tinker has sidestepped those procedures by invoking the power under s 201-1 and r 7.3.1 to call a meeting in her capacity as a director.

54 However, even if that is what has occurred here, the evidence falls well short of establishing that the meeting Ms Tinker has called will therefore not be held for a proper purpose. The fact that Ms Tinker has evidently decided to exercise her right under s 201-1 and r 7.3.1 to call a general meeting, even with knowledge of the member's petition, says nothing, without more, about whether the meeting will be held for a proper purpose. Accordingly, I reject the third reason on which NWAC relies.

55 The fourth reason on which NWAC relies, regarding the possible motivation for the calling of the general meeting, amounts to nothing more than speculation. In any event, it is difficult to understand why that possible motivation, without more, would mean that the general meeting would not be held for a proper purpose.

56 Finally, and as to the fifth reason, based on the very limited evidence before me, I cannot make any findings about the process by which the current directors were elected at the 2025 annual general meeting. In any event, even if I were to accept the submission made on behalf of NWAC that the relevant annual general meeting was fair, and that it was conducted in accordance with the NWAC rule book and that the usual process for the election of directors was followed, it by no means follows that the general meeting Ms Tinker has called will not be held for a proper purpose.

The general meeting will not be held at a reasonable time and place (s 201-60)

57 It is submitted on behalf of NWAC that if the general meeting is held at Bidyadanga on 22 April 2026, it will not be held at a reasonable time and place, contrary to s 201-60 of the CATSI Act, and r 7.2.2(a) of the NWAC rule book. Relying on the evidence of Mr Wright, and to some extent on the evidence of Mr Houston, NWAC makes the following contentions in support of that submission:

(1) The venue for the meeting is not large enough to accommodate the number of members who are likely to attend. The majority of members likely to attend the meeting would be outside the meeting venue and therefore may not be able to properly participate in the proceedings of the meeting.

(2) The Bidyadanga community has rationed the amount of fuel available per person, meaning that members travelling to the meeting from Broome and Port Hedland would have difficulty refuelling for their return home after the meeting. A fuel supply issue may also be caused for the residents of the Bidyadanga community if a large number of members from Broome and Port Hedland attend the meeting.

(3) The meeting location is a four-hour drive from Port Hedland and a two-hour drive from Broome and there is no overnight accommodation available in the community. This is likely to cause difficulty for members returning to those towns after the meeting and may leave members with no alternative but to risk a long drive home at night.

(4) At least some of NWAC's members and directors are experiencing a period of sorry business, or mourning, following the death of a family member. Cultural protocols mean that at least some members will not be able to attend the meeting as the funeral is to be held on 21 May 2026.

(5) There are potential safety issues associated with having a large, contested general meeting in a remote area, during hot and potentially wet weather with limited access to security, services and infrastructure. NWAC general meetings are normally held in Port Hedland where there are appropriate services and infrastructure.

58 The evidence on which NWAC relies in support of the first contention is an opinion expressed by Mr Wright that the venue for the meeting at Bidyadanga is not big enough as it will only accommodate about 30 people. However, the unchallenged evidence of Mr Kimber is that YMAC specialises in arranging traditional owner meetings in the Pilbara and Yamatji regions of Western Australia and engages in significant planning for general meetings. Mr Kimber says, further, that YMAC has managed, coordinated and facilitated more than 30 NWAC meetings in the last three years. Against that background of experience, YMAC considered that Bidyadanga was suitable for a meeting of NWAC members. Further, Mr Kimber says that while most of the NWAC meetings arranged by YMAC have taken place in Port Hedland, some meetings have been held in Bidyadanga. Importantly, Mr Kimber's unchallenged evidence is that YMAC expects that over 70 NWAC members will attend the meeting and that outside marquees have been organised to accommodate those members during the meeting. Accordingly, I do not accept that the venue for the general meeting will not be large enough. I also do not accept, without more, that the members who attend at the general meeting will not be able to meaningfully participate because they may be outside and under marquees.

59 I reject the second contention made on behalf of NWAC, which concerns the availability of fuel. In that regard, NWAC relies on Mr Wright's evidence that 50 or 60 members who live in Broome and Port Hedland will need to travel to Bidyadanga to participate in the meeting. Having regard to Mr Kimber's evidence, that does not appear to be in dispute. However, Mr Wright says that he is aware that there are fuel rations in the Bidyadanga community that strictly limit the amount of fuel the community can make available per person. According to Mr Wright, this means that members travelling to the meeting may not be able to obtain sufficient fuel in Bidyadanga for their return trips to Broome or Port Hedland, and may also deplete the fuel available for Bidyadanga residents.

60 Mr Wright does not identify the source of his information about these matters, and his opinion about the effect that fuel rations in Bidyadanga might have on members wishing to return home after the meeting is expressed in speculative terms. By contrast, the unchallenged evidence of Mr Kimber is that according to the Western Australian Government's FuelWatch website no fuel restrictions or unavailability have been notified in and around Broome, Port Hedland or Bidyadanga, including as late as the morning of 20 April 2025. Mr Kimber also says that there are several fuel stations that are situated relatively short distances out from Bidyadanga, including towards Broome and Port Hedland. Further, Mr Kimber says that he has been advised by the general manager of NWAC that there is sufficient fuel at the Bidyadanga store, that they have allowed purchases of fuel sufficient to travel to nearby roadhouses, which have no fuel restrictions, and that the Chief Executive Officer of Bidyadanga community has also advised that the community is able to supply fuel for the meeting attendees. I also note Mr Kimber's unchallenged evidence that no one, other than Mr Wright in his affidavit, has expressed any concerns to the organisers of the meeting about the location and availability of fuel.

61 In relation to the third contention, NWAC relies once again on Mr Wright's evidence, which is relevantly to the effect that there is no overnight accommodation available in Bidyadanga that could be booked by members travelling for the meeting. In that context, Mr Wright says that Bidyadanga is about a four-and-a-half-hour drive from Port Hedland, and about a two-hour drive from Broome. However, there is no evidence before me that this issue is a cause of concern to any other member of NWAC such that I could safely conclude that the general meeting will therefore not be held at a reasonable place. In particular, there is no evidence that any members who do not live in Bidyadanga have decided not to attend at the general meeting because of the lack of available overnight accommodation. For these reasons, I do not accept the third contention made on behalf of NWAC in support of its argument that the time and place of the general meeting are not reasonable.

62 I accept Mr Wright's evidence that he, his family and some members of NWAC are going through a period of sorry business, and that the funeral of the person who has passed away is to take place on 21 May 2026. I also accept that, in Nyangumarta culture, Mr Wright and his family are not able to conduct business during that period of sorry business. Nevertheless, I note Mr Kimber's evidence that Mr Wright has attended two recent NWAC meetings.

63 Based on the evidence before me, it is not possible to gauge with any degree of accuracy the number of members of NWAC that are likely to be affected by sorry business. I can only conclude with any degree of confidence that there are at least two members who are affected, namely Mr Wright and his sister. I do not have any evidence about how many other people there are in Mr Wright's family, or how many of those people are members of NWAC. I also do not have any evidence of the number of other members of NWAC who may also be affected by sorry business.

64 Although the unavailability of members due to sorry business might well justify a conclusion that a general meeting of NWAC will not be held at a reasonable time and place, much will depend on the circumstances. In this case there is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that the inability of certain members to attend at the general meeting due to sorry business will mean that the meeting will not be held at a reasonable time and place. For that reason, I reject the fourth contention made on behalf of NWAC.

65 The fifth contention is concerned with potential safety issues associated with conducting a general meeting at Bidyadanga. Mr Wright has not given any evidence about this issue. Nevertheless, NWAC submitted that it is unreasonable and improper to call a meeting in a remote location without access to 'a reasonable police presence for a contentious general meeting'. That submission is made in the context of evidence in the form of an email dated 2 April 2026, which is annexed to Mr Wright's affidavit, in which the directors of NWAC were advised that a directors' meeting would be cancelled because of security concerns.

66 However, there is unchallenged evidence from Mr Kimber that YMAC has arranged for at least four and up to six security guards to be in attendance at the general meeting on 22 April 2026, and that the Western Australian Police Force has been advised of the meeting. In those circumstances, I reject the premise of NWAC's submission that inadequate security arrangements have been made for the purposes of the general meeting.

67 It follows from what I have said to this point that NWAC has failed to satisfy me that Ms Tinker has contravened or attempted to contravene the CATSI Act. This means that the precondition to the exercise of the power to grant an injunction under s 576-25(1) has not been satisfied, with the result that NWAC's application for an injunction restraining Ms Tinker from calling the general meeting must be dismissed.

68 Insofar as NWAC sought injunctive relief under s 576-25(1) against YMAC, that aspect of NWAC's application must also be dismissed. As I have already said, it is difficult to understand how Ms Tinker could be said to have contravened or attempted to contravene either ss 201-55 or 201-60 of the CATSI Act. It is even more difficult to see how it could be said that YMAC contravened or attempted to contravene either of those provisions given that its involvement in this matter is as a consequence of it operating in accordance with a service agreement it has with NWAC.

69 To the extent that NWAC submitted that YMAC was knowingly concerned in, or party to, a contravention of ss 201-55 or 201-60 by Ms Tinker, that submission must also be rejected. As I have explained, I am far from persuaded that Ms Tinker has been shown to have contravened either of those provisions. It follows that a precondition to the exercise of the power in s 576-25(1) to grant injunctive relief against YMAC has also not been satisfied.

70 For these reasons I determined to dismiss NWAC's application for injunctive relief under s 576-25(1) of the CATSI Act.

| I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Vandongen. |
Associate:

Dated: 21 April 2026