Lockyer for and on behalf of the Robe River Kuruma People v Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd

Lockyer for and on behalf of the Robe River Kuruma People commenced proceedings against Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd, seeking compensation under the provisions of a deed. The respondents sought to set aside the originating application on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the controversy or, in the alternative, to transfer the originating application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central dispute revolved around the interpretation of a deed that recorded the consent of the applicants to the respondents undertaking certain acts on land subject to the deed and released the respondents from any claim arising under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the controversy constituted a matter arising under a law made by Parliament and whether the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by the applicant being a corporation owing its legal capacity to federal legislation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court held that the present proceedings did require consideration of the federal law, specifically the Native Title Act, as it formed a substantial aspect of the subject matter addressed by the deed. The subject matter of the controversy, in significant respects, concerned rights determined and given effect under the Native Title Act. Consequently, the court found that the federal law was the source of a substantial aspect of the subject matter. The court did not need to decide whether the respondents' incorporation and registration under federal legislation invoked the Court's jurisdiction, given its conclusion regarding the existence of a controversy arising under the Native Title Act. The court also rejected the submission that the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The deed's references to Western Australian laws did not create a sufficient analogy to warrant such a transfer.

The court dismissed the respondents' interlocutory application, finding no basis for setting aside the originating application or transferring the matter to another court. The court ordered that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.