Burragubba v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines

Burragubba v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines is a case involving the appellants, who are registered native title claimants under the Native Title Act 1993, and the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, who had decided to grant mining leases over land subject to the native title claim. The appellants sought judicial review of the National Native Title Tribunal's determination, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Minister did not consult them before concluding that the grant of mining leases could be done as a 'future act' under the Native Title Act. The appellants also argued that the Mineral Resources Act 1989 excluded the common law right to procedural fairness.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the Mineral Resources Act provided a comprehensive code for affording procedural fairness and excluded the common law right to procedural fairness, and whether the Minister was obliged to consult with the appellants before concluding that the grant of mining leases could be done as a 'future act' under the Native Title Act. The court needed to determine whether the first respondent referred to the native title claim being 'resolved' in the sense of being extinguished or in the sense that the grant of a mining lease could be done as a 'future act' under the Native Title Act.

The court found that the appellants had failed to prove that there were facts or circumstances which required the Minister, acting fairly, to consult them before making his decision. The court held that the Mineral Resources Act provided a comprehensive code for affording procedural fairness and had excluded the common law right to procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the first respondent referred to the native title claim being'resolved' in the sense that the grant of a mining lease could be done as a 'future act' under the Native Title Act, and not in the sense of being extinguished.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellants pay to the respondents the costs of the appeal.