WA and A-G NT v Ward & Ors

The High Court of Australia, constituted by Gummow and Callinan JJ, considered the dispute between WA (Western Australia) and the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory (A-G NT) as applicants, and Ward and others as respondents. The proceedings concerned the interpretation and application of the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) and the extent to which native title rights and interests could be recognised and protected in the context of pastoral leases.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondents, as native title holders, had established native title rights and interests that were inconsistent with the continued existence of pastoral leases granted under the laws of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Specifically, the Court had to determine the nature and scope of the native title rights claimed, and whether these rights, if established, extinguished or were extinguished by the grant of the pastoral leases. The Court also considered the application of the "future acts" regime under the *Native Title Act* and the conditions under which native title could be recognised over land subject to pastoral leases.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of extinguishment of native title by the grant of interests in land that are wholly inconsistent with the continued existence of native title. Applying established High Court jurisprudence, their Honours examined the nature of pastoral leases and the rights they confer on lessees. They considered whether the rights granted by the pastoral leases, such as the right to exclusive possession and use of the land for pastoral purposes, were so comprehensive as to leave no room for the continued existence of native title rights and interests. The Court analysed the specific evidence presented regarding the traditional connection of the respondents to the land and the nature of the rights they asserted, comparing these with the rights conferred by the pastoral leases.

The High Court allowed the appeals, finding that the native title rights and interests claimed by the respondents were extinguished by the grant of the pastoral leases. Consequently, the Court held that the respondents had not established native title in relation to the areas covered by the pastoral leases.