Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation Registered Native Title Body Corporate v Bar Resources Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2014] NNTTA 62
•7 July 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation Registered Native Title Body Corporate v Bar Resources Pty Ltd [2014] NNTTA 62
[2014] NNTTA 62
7 July 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation, a registered native title body corporate, challenged a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Bar Resources Pty Ltd under the Mining Act 1978 (WA). The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia, specifically by Justice Bromberg, in the case of Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation Registered Native Title Body Corporate v Bar Resources Pty Ltd. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere with the carrying on of community or social activities, disturb sites of particular significance, or involve major disturbance to land or waters, which could trigger an expedited procedure objection application under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
The court had to assess whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, and if they would involve major disturbance to land or waters. Additionally, the court considered whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere with sites of particular significance. The determination area included both lands where exclusive native title exists and lands where exclusive possession exists. The court's task was to determine whether the expedited procedure applied to the proposed exploration activities, which would allow the Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation to object to the grant of the exploration licence.
Justice Bromberg found that the proposed exploration activities did not meet the criteria for an expedited procedure objection. The determination area was not entirely comprised of lands where exclusive native title exists, and therefore, the expedited procedure did not apply. The court concluded that the proposed exploration activities were not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, disturb sites of particular significance, or involve major disturbance to land or waters. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and did not grant an expedited procedure for the Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation to object to the grant of the exploration licence.
The court had to assess whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, and if they would involve major disturbance to land or waters. Additionally, the court considered whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere with sites of particular significance. The determination area included both lands where exclusive native title exists and lands where exclusive possession exists. The court's task was to determine whether the expedited procedure applied to the proposed exploration activities, which would allow the Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation to object to the grant of the exploration licence.
Justice Bromberg found that the proposed exploration activities did not meet the criteria for an expedited procedure objection. The determination area was not entirely comprised of lands where exclusive native title exists, and therefore, the expedited procedure did not apply. The court concluded that the proposed exploration activities were not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, disturb sites of particular significance, or involve major disturbance to land or waters. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and did not grant an expedited procedure for the Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation to object to the grant of the exploration licence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Exclusive Possession
-
Adverse Possession
-
Legitimate Expectation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Barbara Sturt and Others on behalf of Jaru v Eastmin Pty Ltd and Another [2016] NNTTA 3
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Keith Narrier and Others on behalf of Tjiwarl v Justin Charles Cavallaro and Another
[2016] NNTTA 52
Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v William Robert Richmond
[2015] NNTTA 48
Cases Cited
20
Statutory Material Cited
0
PJ & Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal)
[2007] FMCAfam 829
Eldridge v FC of T
[1990] FCA 369
PJ & Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal)
[2007] FMCAfam 829