Straits Exploration (Australia) Pty Ltd v Kokatha Uwankara Native Title Claimants

Straits Exploration (Australia) Pty Ltd and Kelaray Pty Ltd (the appellants) sought authorisation for mining exploration operations on Lake Torrens, South Australia, under Part 9B of the *Mining Act 1971* (SA). Having failed to reach an agreement with the Kokatha Uwankara Native Title Claimants (the respondents), the appellants applied to the Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia for a determination authorising their proposed drilling activities. The respondents were the native title claimants in the proceedings below. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia by way of appeal and judicial review proceedings, heard concurrently.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the District Court Judge, sitting as a Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court, had fundamentally misunderstood his role, acting as if he were determining a trial requiring judicial resolution rather than making an administrative decision. The appellants contended that this misconception led to a denial of procedural fairness and an unfair hearing. Furthermore, it was argued that the Judge failed to properly address a statutory requirement under the *Mining Act 1971* (SA) concerning the approval of mining on terms.

The Full Court reasoned that the Judge had indeed laboured under a misconception of his statutory role. The Court held that the Judge's approach, which involved making findings as if resolving a trial and criticising the appellants' past conduct, was inappropriate for the administrative decision-making process required by Part 9B of the *Mining Act 1971* (SA). The Court found that the Judge had failed to give the appellants adequate notice of his contemplated findings and an opportunity to address them, thereby denying procedural fairness. Moreover, the Judge had erred by not adequately considering the possibility of imposing conditions to allow mining operations to proceed, instead reasoning that the respondents' unwillingness to agree to any terms rendered further consideration of conditional approval futile. The Court emphasised that the statutory purpose involved a balancing exercise, not the penalisation of an applicant for past conduct.

Consequently, the Full Court remitted the matter to another Judge of the Environment, Resources and Development Court for determination in accordance with the reasons provided.