Albert Little and Others on behalf of the Badimia People/Western Australia/FMG Resources Pty Ltd

The case involved Albert Little and others representing the Badimia People, who sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Western Australia to FMG Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the Native Title Act 1993 provided the Federal Court with the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the objection, and whether the statutory notice given under section 29 of the Act was adequate. The application was brought under the expedited procedure outlined in Part 10 of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the objection and whether the notice given to the Badimia People was adequate under section 29 of the Native Title Act. The court needed to determine if the failure to comply with section 29(3) rendered the notice invalid and, consequently, if the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the objection. The court also examined whether the notice provided sufficient information for the Badimia People to effectively object to the proposed exploration licence.

The court found that the notice was invalid because it failed to comply with section 29(3) of the Native Title Act. This section requires the notice to include a written statement of reasons for the proposed grant of the exploration licence. As the notice did not contain such a statement, the court held that it was invalid. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the objection. The court dismissed the objection application, finding that the failure to provide an adequate notice under section 29(3) precluded the exercise of jurisdiction. The court also noted that the notice was insufficient for the Badimia People to effectively participate in the objection process.