Wilfred Hicks and Others on behalf of Wong-goo-tt-oo/Mark Lockyer and Others on behalf of Kuruma Marthudunera/Western Australia/Mineralogy Pty Ltd

Wilfred Hicks and others, on behalf of the Wong-goo-tt-oo, along with Mark Lockyer and others on behalf of the Kuruma Marthudunera, contested the proposed grant of exploration licences by Western Australia to Mineralogy Pty Ltd. They argued that the exploration activities would interfere with their native title rights, specifically by disrupting their community and social activities, affecting sites of particular significance, and causing major disturbances to the land and waters. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the proposed acts were likely to have the aforementioned impacts.

The court had to decide if the exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the native title holders' community or social activities, and whether they would affect sites of particular significance. It also needed to determine if the activities would cause major disturbance to the land or waters, and if the area was ‘site rich.’ Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mineralogy Pty Ltd had adequately consulted with the native title parties and whether there was misleading evidence provided by Mineralogy Pty Ltd. The relationship dynamics between the native title party and the grantee party were also examined, as were the findings of a previous determination. The court had to assess the relevance of Mineralogy Pty Ltd's behaviour to the predictive assessment required under section 237(b) of the relevant legislation.

The court found that the proposed exploration activities would indeed interfere with the native title parties' community and social activities, affect sites of particular significance, and cause major disturbances to the land and waters. It determined that the area was ‘site rich,’ and that Mineralogy Pty Ltd had not adequately consulted with the native title parties. The court also found that Mineralogy Pty Ltd had provided misleading evidence. The relationship difficulties between the native title party and Mineralogy Pty Ltd were considered relevant to the predictive assessment, and the findings of the previous determination were adopted. Based on these findings, the court ruled in favour of the native title parties, objecting to the proposed grant of exploration licences. The court issued an order prohibiting Mineralogy Pty Ltd from proceeding with the exploration activities without further consultation and consideration of the native title parties' rights and interests.