Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Westex Resources Pty Ltd/Western Australia

The case of Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People against Westex Resources Pty Ltd and Western Australia involved a dispute over a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. The Widji People, represented by Leonne Velickovic, objected to the grant, invoking the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993. The primary legal issue was whether the evidence provided by the Widji People was sufficient to support their objection and justify the application of the expedited procedure. The court had to determine whether the proposed act of granting the prospecting licence attracted the expedited procedure, which requires a quick determination due to the potential for significant harm to native title if not promptly addressed.

The court examined the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. It considered the potential impact on native title rights and the immediacy of the harm that could result from the grant of the prospecting licence. The Widji People argued that their native title rights were at risk, and the grant of the licence would cause significant harm. However, the court found that the evidence provided did not sufficiently support the objection. The court concluded that while the proposed act did attract the expedited procedure, the evidence was insufficient to justify the objection at that stage.

Consequently, the court dismissed the objection and determined that the proposed act attracted the expedited procedure. The decision highlighted the importance of providing adequate evidence to support objections under the expedited procedure. The court's reasoning focused on the need for clear and compelling evidence to establish the risk of significant harm to native title rights. This case underscores the delicate balance between the protection of native title rights and the need for efficient decision-making in mining and prospecting activities. The final orders were that the objection was dismissed, but the proposed act was recognised as attracting the expedited procedure.