David Smirke and Others on behalf of the Jurruru People/Western Australia/Aurora Resources Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2009] NNTTA 142
•4 November 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
David Smirke and Others on behalf of the Jurruru People/Western Australia/Aurora Resources Pty Ltd [2009] NNTTA 142
[2009] NNTTA 142
4 November 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, David Smirke and others on behalf of the Jurruru People, sought to object to the granting of exploration licences by the State of Western Australia to Aurora Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the potential for the proposed exploration activities to interfere with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, or with sites of particular significance. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, whether they were likely to interfere with sites of particular significance, and whether the area was ‘site rich’. The court was also required to consider the intentions of the grantee party regarding site protection and whether there was an alleged failure to comply with certain obligations.
The court found that the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, and with sites of particular significance. The court held that the area was ‘site rich’, and that the grantee party had not adequately demonstrated that it had taken appropriate measures to protect the sites in question. The court found that the grantee party had failed to comply with certain obligations, and that this failure was likely to result in harm to the applicants' native title rights. The court granted the applicants' objection to the grant of the exploration licences.
The court ordered that the State of Western Australia refrain from granting the exploration licences to Aurora Resources Pty Ltd until such time as the grantee party had taken appropriate measures to protect the applicants' native title rights, including the protection of sites of particular significance. The court also ordered that the grantee party take such measures as were necessary to ensure that its exploration activities did not interfere with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, or with sites of particular significance.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, whether they were likely to interfere with sites of particular significance, and whether the area was ‘site rich’. The court was also required to consider the intentions of the grantee party regarding site protection and whether there was an alleged failure to comply with certain obligations.
The court found that the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, and with sites of particular significance. The court held that the area was ‘site rich’, and that the grantee party had not adequately demonstrated that it had taken appropriate measures to protect the sites in question. The court found that the grantee party had failed to comply with certain obligations, and that this failure was likely to result in harm to the applicants' native title rights. The court granted the applicants' objection to the grant of the exploration licences.
The court ordered that the State of Western Australia refrain from granting the exploration licences to Aurora Resources Pty Ltd until such time as the grantee party had taken appropriate measures to protect the applicants' native title rights, including the protection of sites of particular significance. The court also ordered that the grantee party take such measures as were necessary to ensure that its exploration activities did not interfere with the carrying on of the applicants' community or social activities, or with sites of particular significance.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Future Acts
-
Expedited Procedure
-
Interference with Community Activities
-
Sites of Particular Significance
-
Site Protection
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Alec Alexander and Others on behalf of Jurruru #1 (Part B) Claim v Miramar Resources Limited and Another [2022] NNTTA 35
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Alec Alexander & Others on behalf of Jurruru #1 (Part B) Claim v Miramar Resources Limited and Another
[2022] NNTTA 35
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
0
Walley v Western Australia
[2002] NNTTA 24
Walley v Western Australia
[2002] NNTTA 24