Mark Lockyer and Others on behalf of Kuruma Marthudunera (Combined)/Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd

In this case, Mark Lockyer, on behalf of the Kuruma Marthudunera native title claim group, challenged the grant of exploration licences E08/2190 and E08/2191 by the Government of Western Australia to Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd. The claim group argued that the grant of these licences would interfere with their native title rights and would cause significant disturbance to sites of cultural, spiritual, and ecological importance. The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, interfere with sites of particular significance, or cause major disturbance to the land or waters.

The Court considered the arguments presented by the parties and the existing legal precedents. It noted that in previous cases, such as Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Asia Investment Corporation Pty Ltd, the absence of evidence from the grantee party regarding site protection plans had led to the conclusion that the act did not attract the expedited procedure. In this case, the Court found that there was no evidence from Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd about their intentions to consult with the native title party or their plans to protect significant sites.

The Court also highlighted the importance of the Regulatory Shared Heritage Agreement (RSHA) in providing a framework for the protection of Aboriginal heritage sites. However, it was noted that the RSHA had not been accepted by the native title party, and no further intentions had been provided by the grantee party. The Court concluded that without clear evidence of the grantee party's commitment to site protection and consultation, it could not be assured that there would be no significant interference with the native title rights.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the grant of the exploration licences was not an act attracting the expedited procedure because there was a real chance of interference with places of particular significance to the Kuruma Marthudunera native title claim group. The decision underscores the need for the grantee party to provide detailed evidence of their intentions and plans to protect Aboriginal heritage sites and to engage in meaningful consultation with the native title parties.

In light of the Court's findings, the grant of exploration licences E08/2190 and E08/2191 to Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd was not considered an act attracting the expedited procedure. The decision highlights the importance of thorough consultation and the provision of detailed site protection plans to avoid interference with native title rights.