State of Western Australia v Willis on behalf of the Pilki People

In the case of the State of Western Australia v Willis on behalf of the Pilki People, the central issue was whether the primary judge had erred in concluding that the claimants possessed the right to access and take for any purpose the resources of the land and waters within the determination area. This case involved a dispute over native title rights pertaining to a specific area, where the claimants argued they had the right to exploit resources for any purpose. The primary judge's determination was challenged by the State of Western Australia, which argued that the evidence did not substantiate such a broad right to resource exploitation.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that traditional laws and customs of the Pilki People granted them the right to take resources for any purpose. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the term "commercial activity" was sufficiently defined to limit the scope of these rights. The evidence presented included testimonies from four claim group members and an anthropologist, Dr Cane. The testimonies highlighted that the claim group had traditional ownership and control over the land, with rights to determine its use and to refuse or permit activities such as mining. However, the extent to which these rights extended to commercial activities, particularly those involving trade or larger-scale operations, was a matter of contention.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the primary judge's determination that the claimants had the right to access and take resources for any purpose within the determination area. The court found that the traditional laws and customs, as testified by the claim group members and Dr Cane, established a broad entitlement to the land and its resources. While the State had argued for a more restricted interpretation of these rights, particularly concerning commercial activities, the court was satisfied that the primary judge's findings were well-founded. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the primary judge's determination regarding the claimants' native title rights.