Daisy Lungunan & Others on behalf of the Nyikina & Mangala Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Kimberley Quarry Pty Ltd

The case of Daisy Lungunan and others on behalf of the Nyikina and Mangala Native Title Claimants against Western Australia and Kimberley Quarry Pty Ltd was heard by the Federal Court. The dispute centres around the proposed grant of an exploration licence and the potential interference with native title rights, including the likelihood of interference with community or social activities, sites of particular significance, and major disturbance to land or waters. The claimants sought to object to the grant of the exploration licence under an expedited procedure.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, interfere with sites of particular significance, or cause major disturbance to land or waters. The court also had to consider whether the expedited procedure was appropriate in this case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the ceremonial grounds identified by the native title party were located outside the proposed licence area and were unlikely to be interfered with. The court also noted that the proposed licence was not in a site rich area, and while the areas around Pandanus Park and Fitzroy River were site rich, they were over 40 kilometres away. The court was unable to conclude that there were any sites of particular significance within the proposed licence, but noted that the grantee party had been put on notice of any such sites. Regarding major disturbance to land and waters, the court found that the exploration activities were unlikely to cause such disturbance, taking into account the locality and the remedial regulatory regime in place. The court also noted the concerns of the native title party, but ultimately found that the expedited procedure was appropriate in this case.

The final orders of the court were that the objection to the grant of the exploration licence be dismissed. The court found that the proposed exploration activities were unlikely to interfere with the native title rights of the claimants, and that the expedited procedure was appropriate. The grantee party was put on notice of the existence and general location of any ceremonial grounds and sites of particular significance, and the court noted the concerns of the native title party. However, the court ultimately found that these concerns were not sufficient to warrant a different outcome.