Pearl Joyce Connelly (Mitakoodi & Mayi People); Sonny Condren & Ors (Kalkadoon People #4)/Queensland/Metex Resources Ltd; Reefway Pty Ltd

The case involved Pearl Joyce Connelly and Sonny Condren, representing their respective Aboriginal groups, the Mitakoodi & Mayi People and the Kalkadoon People, who brought proceedings against Metex Resources Ltd and Reefway Pty Ltd, challenging the proposed grant of exploration permits over land they claimed native title. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which applied the expedited procedure provisions under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicants sought to object to the grant of exploration permits on the basis that the respondents had not complied with the requirements for determining native title under the Act. The central legal issues revolved around the obligations of the respondents in relation to the determination of native title, the applicability of the expedited procedure, and the consequences of the applicants' withdrawal of their exploration licence applications.

The Court considered whether the applicants' withdrawal of their exploration licence applications affected the operation of the expedited procedure under the Act. The Court found that the withdrawal did not render the procedure inoperative, as the Act allows for objections to be made even if the exploration licence applications have been withdrawn. The Court further held that the respondents were not required to determine the native title claim before issuing the exploration permits, as the Act does not impose such a requirement. Instead, the Act requires the respondents to have regard to the native title claim when considering the grant of exploration permits. The Court concluded that the respondents had complied with their obligations under the Act, and dismissed the applicants' objection applications.

The Court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Native Title Act and the circumstances of the case. The Court found that the applicants' objections were not well-founded, as the respondents had taken reasonable steps to have regard to the native title claim in their decision-making process. The Court also noted that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of native title over the land in question. As a result, the Court dismissed the applicants' objection applications and allowed the proposed grant of exploration permits to proceed. The Court's decision provides important guidance on the operation of the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act and the obligations of respondents in relation to native title claims.