Cyril Barnes and Others on behalf of the Central East Goldfields People/Western Australia/Gindalbie Metals Ltd

Cyril Barnes and others, on behalf of the Central East Goldfields People, sought a determination in the Federal Court to allow the grant of exploration licences by the Minister for Mines and Petroleum of Western Australia over land in the state. The respondents were the State of Western Australia and Gindalbie Metals Ltd. The primary dispute centred on the applicants' assertion that the proposed exploration licences would infringe upon their native title rights and interests. The named applicant, Cyril Barnes, declined to sign a state deed, leading to the court's consideration of whether the exploration activities could proceed under a consent determination.

The court had to decide whether the proposed exploration activities would constitute future acts that might adversely affect the native title rights and interests of the applicants. The legal issues included the interpretation of the Native Title Act 1993, particularly in relation to future acts, and the process for determining consent for such acts when the named applicant refuses to sign the state deed. The court also had to consider the implications of a regional standard heritage agreement and the consent of the native title party as a whole.

The court found that the native title rights and interests of the applicants would be adversely affected by the proposed exploration activities. However, it also noted that the applicants, as a whole, consented to the grant of the exploration licences. Under the Native Title Act, a consent determination could be made if the native title party as a whole consented to the future act. The court concluded that the consent of the native title party as a whole was sufficient to permit the exploration activities to proceed. Therefore, the court made a consent determination that the act may be done.

The court ordered that the Minister for Mines and Petroleum could proceed with the grant of the exploration licences, as the consent determination allowed for the future act to be carried out. The decision recognised the importance of the native title rights and interests while also balancing the rights of the respondents to conduct exploration activities.