Yurriyangem Taam and Others v Baibao Resources Pty Ltd and Another

In the Federal Court of Australia, Yurriyangem Taam and other members of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples challenged the grant of an exploration licence to Baibao Resources Pty Ltd, arguing that it would interfere with their native title rights. The dispute centred around the proposed exploration activities on land that the applicants claimed was covered by their native title, including potential impacts on their community and social activities, sites of particular significance, and major disturbances to land and waters. The applicants sought an expedited procedure objection to prevent the grant of the exploration licence. The court had to determine whether the act of granting the exploration licence was likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, interfere with sites of particular significance, or involve major disturbance to land or waters.

The Federal Court examined the statutory provisions and the relevant case law to understand the criteria for invoking the expedited procedure objection. The court considered the nature and extent of the proposed exploration activities, the impact on the applicants' native title rights, and the likelihood of major disturbances. The court found that the proposed exploration activities were likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities, interfere with sites of particular significance, and involve major disturbance to land or waters. Consequently, the court concluded that the expedited procedure applied, and the applicants' objection was valid.

The court ordered that the grant of the exploration licence to Baibao Resources Pty Ltd be stayed pending the resolution of the native title claim. This stay ensured that the exploration activities would not proceed until the court determined whether the applicants' native title rights were valid and, if so, how they should be reconciled with the proposed exploration activities. The court's decision emphasised the importance of protecting native title rights and the need for consultation and consideration of the impacts on native title holders before proceeding with activities that could affect their rights.