Galaxy Resources Ltd/ Allan Bolton and Others on behalf of Southern Noongar/ Alan Bolton and Others on behalf of Wagyl Kaip/ State of Western Australia

In the case of Galaxy Resources Ltd and others, the parties were in dispute over the grant of a mining lease over land subject to native title. The claimants were Allan Bolton and others on behalf of Southern Noongar and Alan Bolton and others on behalf of Wagyl Kaip, and the defendant was the State of Western Australia. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The claimants argued that the grant of a mining lease over their native title land required their consent under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). They further contended that the consent of all members of the native title group was necessary, and that the State of Western Australia had failed to obtain such consent.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grant of a mining lease over native title land required the consent of all members of the native title group, and if so, whether such consent had been obtained. The court was also required to determine whether a consent determination could be made where the named applicants had not signed the state deed. The claimants argued that the consent of all members of the native title group was necessary, and that the State of Western Australia had failed to obtain such consent. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act and the common law principles relating to native title.

The court found that the grant of a mining lease over native title land required the consent of all members of the native title group, and that such consent had not been obtained in this case. However, the court also found that a consent determination could be made where the native title party as a whole consented to the grant of the mining lease. The court held that the consent of all members of the native title group was not necessary where the native title party as a whole had consented to the grant of the mining lease. The court found that the claimants had consented to the grant of the mining lease, and that such consent was sufficient to grant the mining lease. The court also found that the named applicants need not sign the state deed in order for a consent determination to be made.

The court's decision was that the grant of the mining lease over the native title land was valid, and that the claimants' claims were dismissed. The court held that the consent of all members of the native title group was not necessary where the native title party as a whole had consented to the grant of the mining lease. The court found that the claimants had consented to the grant of the mining lease, and that such consent was sufficient to grant the mining lease. The court also found that the named applicants need not sign the state deed in order for a consent determination to be made. The claimants' appeal to the High Court was subsequently dismissed.