Doris Ryder and Others on behalf of Lamboo/ Scotty Birrell and Others on behalf of Koongie-Elvire/ Western Australia/ Bundarra Holdings Pty Ltd

Doris Ryder and others on behalf of the Lamboo people, Scotty Birrell and others on behalf of the Koongie-Elvire people, Western Australia, and Bundarra Holdings Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, seeking a determination that a future act, specifically the grant of an exploration licence, may be done. The applicants sought this determination under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to address the logistical challenges associated with obtaining signatures from all native title parties, given the geographical spread and number of individuals involved. The applicants argued that a consent determination, approved by each native title party, would suffice for the grant of the exploration licence. The court was tasked with determining whether the named applicants, who had not signed the state deed, could still consent to the future act under the Act, and if so, whether the logistical difficulties justified the use of a consent determination.

The court considered whether the named applicants, who were not signatories to the state deed, could still provide valid consent for the future act. It also examined the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), particularly section 24EA, which allows for a consent determination to be made when it is not practicable to obtain the consent of all native title parties. The court further assessed the applicants' arguments regarding the logistical difficulties and the execution of a heritage agreement by the grantee party. The court had to determine whether these factors justified the use of a consent determination and whether it was appropriate for the court to approve such a determination under the circumstances.

The court found that the named applicants, who had not signed the state deed, could still provide valid consent for the future act if each native title party consented to the determination. The court held that logistical difficulties and the execution of a heritage agreement by the grantee party were significant factors that justified the use of a consent determination. The court concluded that it was appropriate to approve the consent determination, allowing the future act to proceed, as each native title party had given their consent. The court's decision was based on the applicants' ability to demonstrate that obtaining signatures from all native title parties was not practicable and that the consent of each party was obtained.

The final orders of the court granted the relief sought by the applicants. The court determined that the future act, the grant of an exploration licence, may be done, and approved the consent determination that each native title party had consented to the act. The court's decision provided a practical solution to the logistical challenges faced by the applicants and facilitated the grant of the exploration licence.