QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave (No 3)

The case of QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave (No 3) involved a dispute concerning the registration of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The parties involved were QGC, which sought to register an ILUA with the Bigambul People, and the respondents, who represented the Kamilaroi/Gomeroi People, challenging the registration process. The central issue was whether the Kamilaroi/Gomeroi People could insist on their involvement in the authorisation process for the QGC–Bigambul agreement, despite not being the primary claimants over the land in question.

The court had to determine the legal meaning of certain provisions in the Act, specifically sections 24CG(3)(b) and 251A, which relate to the registration of ILUAs and the authorisation process, respectively. The court examined the statutory scheme and the purpose behind the ILUA provisions to understand the scope of these sections. It found that the expression "all persons who hold or may hold native title" in section 24CG(3)(b) has an expansive and inclusive meaning, while the expression "hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising native title" in section 251A(a) and (b) has a confined and exclusive meaning.

In its reasoning, the court distinguished the case from Kemp v Native Title Registrar, clarifying that the authorisation process in section 251A does not allow for conflicting groups to insist on their participation if they have not registered their claims under the Act. The court held that the delegate of the Native Title Registrar erred by applying the "not merely colourable" test and by taking into account irrelevant considerations such as the conflicting claims of the Kamilaroi/Gomeroi People.

The court granted QGC the relief it sought, ordering the delegate to register the QGC–Bigambul agreement as an ILUA. The court directed the parties to bring in orders reflecting the conclusions reached in its reasons for decision, giving them seven days to do so.