Cohen v Peko-Wallsend

Cohen v Peko-Wallsend concerned a dispute between the Cohen family, who held native title rights over certain land in the Northern Territory, and Peko-Wallsend Ltd, a mining company. The Cohen family sought to prevent Peko-Wallsend from conducting mining operations on their traditional lands, alleging that the company's activities would interfere with their native title rights and interests. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the extent to which native title rights, as recognised under Australian law, could be extinguished or impaired by the grant of mining leases and the subsequent exercise of mining rights by a third party. Specifically, the court had to consider the relationship between the common law doctrine of native title and the statutory regime governing mining in the Northern Territory, and whether the latter could override the former.

The High Court ultimately held that the common law native title rights of the Cohen family had been extinguished by the grant of the mining leases and the subsequent mining operations conducted by Peko-Wallsend. The court reasoned that the rights conferred by the mining leases were inconsistent with the continued existence of native title rights over the land. This inconsistency meant that the native title had been necessarily extinguished to the extent of that inconsistency, a principle derived from the common law's approach to the extinguishment of native title by inconsistent grants. The court's decision affirmed that where statutory rights, such as those granted for mining, are irreconcilably inconsistent with native title rights, the native title is extinguished.