Aubrey Lynch and Others on behalf of the Wongatha People/Mr Geoffrey Alfred Ashwin and Others on behalf of the Wutha People/Western Australia/Brian R Cahill

In this case, the dispute was between the Wongatha and Wutha people, represented by Aubrey Lynch and others, and Western Australia, represented by Brian R Cahill. The applicants sought a determination regarding the grant of a prospecting licence over native title land, with the applicants initially declining to sign a state deed. The case reached the court, which was required to decide whether the future act of granting a prospecting licence could be approved under the Native Title Act 1993. This involved examining the terms of the regional standard heritage agreement and whether the native title party as a whole consented to the proposed act.

The court considered whether the applicants' initial refusal to sign the state deed impacted the ability to grant a consent determination under section 24AD of the Native Title Act. The applicants argued that their refusal indicated a lack of consent, while the respondent contended that the overall consent of the native title party was sufficient to proceed. The court needed to weigh the importance of individual dissent against the collective consent of the native title group and determine if the latter could override the former.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the refusal of some named applicants to sign the state deed did not necessarily preclude the granting of a consent determination. The court found that the overall consent of the native title party as a whole, as expressed through the regional standard heritage agreement, was sufficient to approve the future act. The court determined that the consent of the native title party as a whole could override individual dissent, allowing for the grant of a prospecting licence. Consequently, the court made a consent determination that the future act of granting the prospecting licence may be done.

The final orders of the court were that the future act of granting the prospecting licence over the native title land was approved, subject to the terms of the regional standard heritage agreement. The court's determination enabled the state to proceed with the grant of the prospecting licence, recognising the collective consent of the native title party despite the refusal of some named applicants.