Adani Mining Pty Ltd/Jessie Diver & Ors on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou People/State of Queensland

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia involved Adani Mining Pty Ltd, the Wangan and Jagalingou People, represented by Jessie Diver and others, and the State of Queensland. The dispute centred on an application for a determination regarding the grant of a mining lease in an area claimed by the Wangan and Jagalingou People as part of their native title rights. The key issue was whether the proposed future act of granting the mining lease could proceed in the absence of an agreement with the native title holders. The Court was tasked with determining whether the evidence supported the claims made by the Wangan and Jagalingou People, and whether the proposed future act could be undertaken without extinguishing their native title rights.

The Court considered the legal principles governing future acts in the context of native title, specifically whether the proposed mining lease could proceed without an agreement. The Wangan and Jagalingou People argued that the evidence demonstrated that the proposed mining activities would have significant detrimental impacts on their native title rights, including the destruction of culturally significant sites and disruption of traditional practices. The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the key criteria necessary for determining whether the future act could proceed. The Court found that the evidence provided by the Wangan and Jagalingou People did not sufficiently establish the extent of the detrimental impact on their native title rights, nor did it support the contention that the proposed future act could not proceed.

In conclusion, the Court found that the proposed future act of granting the mining lease could proceed, as the evidence did not support the claims made by the Wangan and Jagalingou People. The Court determined that the State of Queensland had the authority to grant the mining lease, provided that the necessary environmental and regulatory approvals were obtained. The Court's decision was based on the insufficient evidence provided by the native title holders to establish the detrimental impact on their rights, and the lack of support for the contention that the future act could not proceed. The Court's findings and determination provide clarity on the legal framework governing future acts in the context of native title, and the importance of evidence in supporting claims made by native title parties.