Leedham Papertalk & Ors on behalf of Mullewa Wadjari/Western Australia/Douglas Eric Kennedy, Leonard Geoffrey Haworth

The case before the court involved an objection by the Mullewa Wadjari, represented by Leedham Papertalk and others, to a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Douglas Eric Kennedy and Leonard Geoffrey Haworth. The dispute centred on whether the proposed exploration activities would interfere with the native title holders' rights to conduct their community and social activities, and whether these activities would impact sites of particular significance or involve major disturbance to the land or waters. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants sought an expedited procedure to challenge the grant of the exploration licence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed exploration activities would directly interfere with the native title holders' rights, and if the activities would impact sites of significant cultural importance or cause major disturbance to the land or waters. The applicants argued that the exploration activities would interfere with their ability to carry on their community and social activities, and would cause significant harm to culturally significant sites and the environment. The respondents contended that the exploration activities would not interfere with the native title holders' rights or cause significant harm to the environment.

The court found that the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the native title holders' rights to carry on their community and social activities, and that the activities would likely impact sites of particular significance. The court also found that the proposed activities would involve major disturbance to the land and waters, and therefore, the expedited procedure was attracted. The court concluded that the applicants had made out a strong case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the exploration activities until the substantive native title claim was determined.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondents from proceeding with the exploration activities until further order. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for a further hearing to determine the substantive issues in the case. The court recognised the importance of protecting the native title holders' rights and the potential harm to the environment and cultural sites, and therefore, the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants until the substantive issues could be fully heard and determined.