William Webb and Others on behalf of South West Boojarah #2/Tito Pesce/State of Western Australia
Case
•
[2009] NNTTA 59
•22 June 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
William Webb and Others on behalf of South West Boojarah #2/Tito Pesce/State of Western Australia [2009] NNTTA 59
[2009] NNTTA 59
22 June 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the applicants, including William Webb on behalf of the South West Boojarah, sought a determination to allow for the grant of a mining lease within the native title area. The respondents were Tito Pesce and the State of Western Australia. The dispute centred on whether the applicants, who were not signatories to the state deed, could consent to a future act affecting their native title rights. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the legal issues arising from this application.
The court was required to determine whether the named applicants, who were not parties to the state deed, could validly consent to the future act of granting a mining lease, and if their consent, as part of the native title party as a whole, was sufficient to permit such an act. Additionally, the court needed to consider the logistical difficulties associated with obtaining consent from all native title holders and whether the collective consent of the native title party could overcome the absence of individual consents.
The court found that the consent of the native title party as a whole, including those not directly involved in the state deed, was sufficient to allow the future act to proceed. The court acknowledged the challenges in obtaining individual consents from all native title holders but determined that the collective consent, when properly obtained, could satisfy the requirements of the Native Title Act. The court concluded that the application for a consent determination could be granted, allowing the act to proceed under the given circumstances.
The final orders of the court were that the application for a consent determination was granted, permitting the grant of the mining lease within the native title area, subject to the conditions and requirements outlined in the determination. The court's decision recognised the importance of the collective consent of the native title party in resolving disputes over future acts affecting native title rights.
The court was required to determine whether the named applicants, who were not parties to the state deed, could validly consent to the future act of granting a mining lease, and if their consent, as part of the native title party as a whole, was sufficient to permit such an act. Additionally, the court needed to consider the logistical difficulties associated with obtaining consent from all native title holders and whether the collective consent of the native title party could overcome the absence of individual consents.
The court found that the consent of the native title party as a whole, including those not directly involved in the state deed, was sufficient to allow the future act to proceed. The court acknowledged the challenges in obtaining individual consents from all native title holders but determined that the collective consent, when properly obtained, could satisfy the requirements of the Native Title Act. The court concluded that the application for a consent determination could be granted, allowing the act to proceed under the given circumstances.
The final orders of the court were that the application for a consent determination was granted, permitting the grant of the mining lease within the native title area, subject to the conditions and requirements outlined in the determination. The court's decision recognised the importance of the collective consent of the native title party in resolving disputes over future acts affecting native title rights.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Indigenous Peoples & Native Title Law
Legal Concepts
-
Native Title
-
Consent Determination
-
Future Act
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
William Webb and Others on behalf of South West Boojarah #2/Peter Michael Johnson/State of Western Australia [2010] NNTTA 130
Cases Citing This Decision
6
William Webb and Others on behalf of South West Boojarah #2/Peter Michael Johnson/State of Western Australia
[2010] NNTTA 130
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd v Western Australia
[2001] NNTTA 50
Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort Pty Ltd v Western Australia
[2001] NNTTA 50