CCPR/C/137/D/3585/2019 registration was challenged by another Nyiyaparli clan, which was negotiating, with mining companies, two Indigenous land use agreements for a large area that covered the traditional territory of the Wunna Nyiyaparli. Taking into account that, after the decision of the National Native Title Tribunal, it was no longer possible for the other Nyiyaparli clan to go ahead with the Indigenous land use agreements, that clan filed, on 13 July 2012, an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The author clarifies that, in 1998, the other Nyiyaparli clan had filed a native title application before the Federal Court, claiming lands comprising a larger area that wholly encompassed the lands claimed by the Wunna Nyiyaparli, with no resolution to date. 2.9 On 2 April 2015, four years after the filing of the Wunna Nyiyaparli application under the Native Title Act and three years after the registration test decision, the Federal Court started to make orders concerning the preparation for the hearings of the native title claim of the Wunna Nyiyaparli. 2.10 In a hearing on 28 October 2015, the Federal Court ordered that the Wunna Nyiyaparli proceedings were to be examined jointly with the native title application filed in 1998 by the other Nyiyaparli clan. The Court also ordered that a “separate question”, aimed at determining whether the Wunna Nyiyaparli were descendants of the Nyiyaparli, 7 be decided separately. 2.11 The counsel representing the Wunna Nyiyaparli before the Federal Court at that time immediately informed the Court that the Wunna Nyiyaparli did not consent to the proposed order for a hearing on the separate question because the community had never been consulted about it and did not understand how such a separate question had arisen, and recalled that the evidence to answer the question in the affirmative had already been supplied in the application. 2.12 In the absence of a response from the Federal Court, on 4 December 2015, the Wunna Nyiyaparli submitted additional documents in support of their claim and of their Nyiyaparli origin, including an anthropological report and statements by Wunna Nyiyaparli elders. 2.13 On 18 March 2016, the lawyers of the Wunna Nyiyaparli filed a notice of ceasing to act for the Wunna Nyiyaparli. The author clarifies that, prior to that date, because the relations with the lawyers had not been functional, the Wunna Nyiyaparli had been unable to fully understand the implications of the proceedings. Having no funds to hire other lawyers, the Wunna Nyiyaparli, who were no longer represented by lawyers at that point, took no further steps after that date. In particular, they did not attend a hearing on 24 March 2016 as they were unaware that it was necessary for them to attend; similarly, they did not attend a hearing on 13 April 2016 because, on the basis of comments made by the judge that they read in the transcript of the hearing of 24 March 2016, they had thought that the separate question had already been decided in their favour. 2.14 On 20 April 2016, the Registrar of the Federal Court addressed a letter to the Wunna Nyiyaparli, informing them of a direction hearing scheduled for 3 May 2016. They responded that they were confused about this letter and that they would not be able to attend without legal representation. 2.15 On 3 May 2016, the Registrar of the Federal Court made orders for the Wunna Nyiyaparli to file a notice indicating whether they wanted to participate in the hearing on the separate question. The Wunna Nyiyaparli only saw this email on 6 May 2016 and responded immediately, stating that it was their understanding, from a transcript that they had read, that the separate question had already been decided in their favour. They also indicated to the Registrar, in a second email sent on the same day, that they did not understand how the separate question proceedings had arisen and they asked how the other Nyiyaparli clan had become a party to their claim. On 9 May 2016, a response from the Registrar informed them 7 4 Formulated by the Court as following: “Was the paternal grandmother of William Bill Coffin (born circa 1903), being a woman described by the Wunna Nyiyaparli applicants as Maggie, a Nyiyaparli person, that is, a person descended from Nyiyaparli ancestors or possessing rights and interests in the land and waters comprised in the area of the Wunna Nyiyaparli claim and with a connection to those land and waters, both in accordance with traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the Nyiyaparli people?”. GE.23-13390