Ike Simpson and Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji People/Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited/State of Western Australia

The case involved the Wajarri Yamatji People, represented by Ike Simpson and others, Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited, and the State of Western Australia. The dispute centred around the application for a determination to grant a mining lease over native title land, where the named applicants had not signed a state deed. The Wajarri Yamatji People, as native title holders, raised concerns about the logistical difficulties associated with obtaining individual signatures from all members of the native title party, given the size and dispersion of the group. Despite the absence of signed consent from all named applicants, the broader native title party expressed its consent to the proposed mining activities.

The court was required to decide whether the named applicants' lack of signed consent could be overridden by the collective consent of the native title party as a whole. The legal issue hinged on interpreting the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and determining whether a consent determination could be validly made when not all named applicants had signed the state deed. The court also had to consider whether the logistical difficulties faced by the native title group justified a deviation from the strict procedural requirements of the Act.

The court found that the Act permits a consent determination to be made even if not all named applicants have signed the state deed, provided that the native title party as a whole consents to the proposed act. The court held that the collective consent of the native title party was sufficient to validate the consent determination, despite the logistical challenges of obtaining individual signatures. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the procedural requirements of the Act with the practical realities faced by native title groups. Consequently, the court granted the application for a consent determination, allowing the mining lease to proceed.

The final orders of the court included a determination that the act of granting a mining lease over the native title land may be done, despite the absence of signed consent from all named applicants. The court's decision recognised the collective consent of the native title party as a valid basis for proceeding with the proposed mining activities.