Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC and Others v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another

Case

[2015] NNTTA 4

4 February 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC and Others v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 4 [2015] NNTTA 4 4 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC and Others v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another, the applicants sought to prevent the respondents from engaging in exploration activities under proposed exploration licences. The applicants claimed that the exploration activities would interfere with their native title rights and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the acts were likely to interfere with the carrying on of community or social activities, or with sites of particular significance.

The legal issues before the court included whether the acts were likely to interfere with the carrying on of community or social activities and whether the interference must be physical. The court was also required to determine whether an area or site must have physical form and whether the acts were likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters. The court was asked to consider whether the expedited procedure was attracted and whether the Tribunal must have regard to the nature of the activity.

The court found that the acts were likely to interfere with the carrying on of community or social activities and that the interference did not need to be physical. The court held that an area or site did not need to have physical form and that the acts were likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters. The court found that the expedited procedure was not attracted and that the Tribunal must have regard to the nature of the activity. The court adopted previous findings of the Tribunal and held that the interference was determined by reference to the traditions of the native title party.

The orders of the court were that the respondents were not permitted to engage in exploration activities under the proposed exploration licences until the applicants’ native title rights had been extinguished or otherwise lawfully determined. The respondents were also required to provide the applicants with a copy of any proposal for exploration activities before engaging in those activities.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law

Legal Concepts

  • Native Title

  • Adverse Possession

  • Legitimate Expectation

  • Proportionality

  • Cultural Significance