Little and Others v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd

In the case of Little and Others v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd, the appellants, representing the Badimia People, challenged the grant of a Miscellaneous Licence by Oriole Resources Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of PacMin Mining Corporation Limited. The licence, covering 120 hectares near the Mt Gibson Gold Mine, was contested on the grounds that it would likely involve major disturbance to the land and waters, contravening the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA). The Tribunal, however, dismissed the objection, finding no major disturbance was likely due to the limited extent of the licence's exercise as stated by PacMin.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 237(c) of the NTA and the definition of "major disturbance" in the context of the grant of the Miscellaneous Licence. The appellants argued that the Tribunal misconstrued Section 237(c) and failed to undertake a proper predictive assessment of the potential disturbance. The respondents contended that the Tribunal correctly assessed the likelihood of major disturbance based on the evidence provided.

The court found that the Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of Section 237(c), as supported by precedents such as Smith v Western Australia and Little v State of Western Australia. The court also determined that the Tribunal correctly assessed the likelihood of major disturbance by considering the evidence, including the limited scope of the licence's exercise as stated by PacMin. The court held that the Tribunal's assessment was not based on a false assumption but on the actual intention to limit the exercise of the licence rights.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the grant of the Miscellaneous Licence would not likely involve major disturbance to the land or waters. The court upheld the Tribunal's approach to the assessment, ensuring it was aligned with the statutory requirements and evidence presented.