French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ
This case considered whether the Wongkumara claimants can seek declarations in the Federal Court on whether the right to negotiate applies to a particular application for a petroleum licence, and an injunction restraining Queensland from granting such a licence unless the right to negotiate process has been completed.
The Wongkumara native title claimants had sought to negotiate a new Indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) with Santos (and a partner company) to supersede an earlier ILUA. The companies had held an Authority to Prospect for petroleum (ATP) in south-west Queensland since 1979, and intended to apply for a production licence. In negotiations for the new ILUA, the Wongkumara had requested a gift of two pastoral leases, to which the companies did not agree. The companies argued that, as they hold the ATP, a production licence would be granted automatically. As such, they said, the grant of a production licence would be a 'pre-existing right-based act' and the right to negotiate under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) does not apply.
The Wongkumara people went to the Federal Court seeking a declaration that the act was a future act requiring negotiation under the NTA. Justice Logan summarily dismissed the application (i.e. without a full hearing) on the grounds that the Wongkumara were seeking an advisory opinion from the Court, which courts do not provide. Logan J also found that the Wongkumara did not have standing (i.e. sufficient direct interest in the matter to seek relief in Court) regarding the petroleum licence, and made costs orders against Wongkumara.
The Full Federal Court of Stone, Greenwood and Jagot JJ refused leave to appeal. Section 33(4B)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act precluded an appeal to the High Court on this decision, so the Wongkumara applied to the High Court for judicial review in relation to errors of law made in the Federal Court rulings. This is within the High Court's 'original jurisdiction'.
The High Court held that the Federal Court (and Full Court) had made errors regarding its jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ruled that there is 'a matter' of controversy between the parties and not merely a hypothetical question or request for advice. The Wongkumara do have standing regarding the petroleum licence based on their interests in negotiating an ILUA, and the matter is within Federal jurisdiction as it involves the NTA. So, the Federal Court had made errors about its jurisdiction, and the High Court quashed the two lower rulings (by issuing the common law writ of certiorari). The Wongkumara are now entitled to have the matter heard and decided by the Federal Court. The High Court ordered that Santos (and the partner company) pay the costs of all proceedings.