Australian Federal Court makes landmark decision on compensation entitlements for native title

The Australian Federal Court has handed down its decision in Davey on behalf of the Gudanji, Yanyuwa and Yanyuwa-Marra Peoples v Northern Territory of Australia (No 5) [2026] FCA 153 (McArthur River Compensation Claim), which concerned a compensation claim made by the claimant native title holders (Claimants) for the loss or infringement of their native title rights arising from the grant of mineral leases and other approvals and activities associated with the development and operation of the McArthur River mine in the Northern Territory.

Key takeaways

The decision is notable due to the Court's approach to evaluating the Claimant' economic and 'cultural loss', the $54 million determination of compensation for the Claimants' 'cultural loss' due to the effect of the mining leases and other project activities on their native title, as well as it being the first judicial determination of compensation for native title holders since the High Court established principles and guardrails for quantifying native title compensation claims in Northern Territory v Griffiths [2019] HCA 7 (Griffiths).

The scope and potential size of compensation payable to native title parties for cultural loss has potentially significant consequences across the country, and will inevitably give rise to more compensation claims by native title holders, and several such claims are already before the courts. While statutory liability for compensation rests with the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, developers and project proponents are often required to indemnify them for any loss or liability arising from the exercise of their statutory powers to authorise or grant tenure for a project, thus making the issue of native title compensation a private sector risk in many instances.

Summary of the facts

The Claimants held non-exclusive native title in land that was the subject of the grant of six mining leases and other approvals issued by the Northern Territory government for the development of the Macarthur River zinc, lead and silver mine and port facilities under Northern Territory mining legislation and the McArthur River Project Agreement Ratification Act 1992 (NT) (Project Act). These interests and approvals were comprised of those initially issued in the early 1990s for the original development of an underground mine, and other approvals progressively issued over the following 25 years as the mine expanded and progressed to an open cut mine and diverted the McArthur River. The interests did not extinguish native title, but the impairment or infringement of those rights was compensable.

The Project Act was amended in 1993 by inserting Section 4B, which established a right for persons with an interest in property to claim compensation for the 'acquisition of property' on 'just terms,' being the extinguishment or diminution of an interest or right in relation to land, or such other effects that were compensable under NT mining legislation in force at the time. These included matters such as being deprived of the use of the surface of the land, damage to the surface of the land, and severance. Such claims were required to be made within 3 years of the section commencing, which the native title holders satisfied by making a claim on 25 June 1996 (Claim).

Basis for compensation and the compensable acts

The court observed that the compensation entitlement in section 4B substantially mirrored the entitlement of native title holders for compensation under of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) on just terms for any loss, diminution, impairment or other effect on their native title rights and interests. Consequently, even though all but one of the Claimants' compensation claims was made under the Project Act, the legal principles established by the High Court in Griffith could be applied to the claim, making allowances for variations between the Project Act and NTA as necessary. It is for this reason that the case has nation-wide importance.

The Court had to determine a range of procedural and estoppel matters concerning the status and content of the Claim that are beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to say that the Court found that the Claim could only seek compensation for matters that pre-dated 30 June 1996. Notwithstanding this, the Court found that the following pre-1996 matters were compensable acts (as relevant) under section 4B of the Project Act and section 51 of the NTA:

• The grant of the six mineral leases which covered an area of 12,444ha
• The grant on non-pastoral permits under NT pastoral land legislation over an area of 255ha
• The grant of a pipeline licence for a 332km gas pipeline to supply the energy needs of the mine, covering an area of approximately 110ha
• The construction and maintenance of a road between the mine and the port, covering an area of approximately 244ha

Compensation for impacts to native title

It is helpful to briefly summarise legal principles established by the High Court in Griffith for determining compensation entitlements for partially or completely extinguishing native title rights. There are three aspects:

• Economic loss – this essentially reflects the native title holders' loss of capacity to use land, and compensates native title holders for the native title rights or interests they have lost or are affected by the compensable act. The freehold value of the land is a proxy for native title rights that confer exclusive possession, and this value is then discounted to compensate for the infringement of non-exclusive native title rights. The discounted amount is derived by applying the conventional land valuation principle that the value of the acquired or infringed native title is based on what a willing but not anxious buyer would pay to a willing but not anxious purchaser in a hypothetical transaction, notwithstanding the inalienability of native title. In Griffith, the High Court settled on an assessment of compensation for non-exclusive native title at 50% of the freehold value of the land, because the native title rights in question were essentially usufructuary, ceremonial, and without any right to prevent other persons from using the land or to grant interests in the land;
• Interest on economic loss – this being interest payable from the date of the compensable; and
• Cultural loss – this reflects the native title parties' loss of cultural connection to the land due to the compensable act, encompassing loss or diminution of traditional attachment to the land or connection to country, and loss of rights to gain spiritual sustenance from the land. There is no formula for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable for cultural loss, other than it is 'the amount which society would rightly regard as an appropriate award for the loss.' In Griffith, that amount was $1.3m, albeit over a much smaller area (127ha) than what was considered in the McArthur River Compensation Claim (13,053.2ha).
  Notably, section 51A of the NTA provides that the freehold value of the land in question is a 'cap' on the value of the acquired or infringed native title rights, but the High Court in Griffith determined this cap only applies to the economic loss, not cultural loss.

The Federal Court sought to apply these principles to the compensation claim in the McArthur River Compensation Claim.

Approach to compensation in the McArthur River Compensation Claim

Compensation for economic loss

The Court grappled with and made findings on key legal issues associated with the size and extent of the discount from the freehold value:

• The fact that only 50% (according to the Northern Territory's expert valuation evidence) of the mineral lease areas may be developed was not substantiated by the evidence nor could it be predicted at the time of granting the mineral leases, meaning that a discount was not justified on this basis and that compensation should be based on the entire extent of the mineral lease area
• A temporary interference with native title rights justified a discount for the 12-month non-pastoral permits but not for the 50-year life of the mineral leases. The Court felt that it might be possible to make a discount for a long-term interest such as mining lease, but no evidence was called on how the end of the mineral lease would alleviate or restore the impaired native title rights, thus making it impossible to quantify a discount.

The Court's next task was to determine the freehold value of each mineral lease area, the pipeline licence area and the area of each non-pastoral permits, excluding any consideration of the economic or other value of minerals. The Court analysed the different approaches adopted by the valuation evidence called by the Claimants and the Northern Territory, and preferred overall the Claimants' expert evidence, which compared the value of this land with comparable sales of analogous land, although rejected the Claimants' evidence that there should be a 'vested interest premium' of 10% applied to the freehold value.

The Court determined the freehold value of the land was $1,369,500, and and assessed the estimated economic value of the native title rights and interest at 55% of the freehold value owing to the non-exclusive nature of the native title rights in question, plus a further 35% discount of the non-pastoral permit values due to the short-term nature of those permits. This resulted in compensation for economic loss coming to $743,408.

Finally – and notably – the Court rejected the Claimants’ alternative argument that economic loss should be based not on land value, but on what would have been charged by the native title holders in a hypothetical, voluntary bargain over the grant of the mineral leases.

Compensation for cultural loss

The Claimants pleaded that cultural loss is to be assessed by reference to the nature and extent of the native title holders' connection to the land by their laws and customs, and the effects of compensable acts on that connection. While this was admitted by the Northern Territory, a dispute arose regarding the effects of the compensable acts in relation to cultural loss.

The Claimants pleaded two such effects:

• loss from diminution or disruption to traditional attachment to country, which may be manifest in perceived damage and harm to country, Dreamings, laws and customs, self, kin, and community; and
• loss of rights to live on, and gain spiritual and material sustenance from, the land, which they stated may be manifest in an inability to hunt and gather, to conduct cultural activities, on the land, and to 'rehearse country in situ'.

The Northern Territory admitted the first but disputed the second insofar as it reflects components of economic loss. The parties also admitted, and the Court accepted, the following considerations are appropriate in assessing cultural loss:

• the award is to be made on a global basis for the entire claim area, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis;
• the loss is intergenerational as the composition of native title holders changes, and the entitlement to compensation is a communal or group entitlement;
• the effects of compensable acts are to be understood from the viewpoint of the laws and customs, and cultural beliefs and practices, of the native title holders; and
• the effects of compensable acts are not confined to the area or areas covered by particular or individual compensable acts. The effects need to be understood in a wider setting informed by the laws and customs, and cultural beliefs and practices, of the native title holders.

The Claimants consists of three different native title holders with different estates. The Court heard expert and lay evidence on the Claimants’ laws and customs to be observed when country is harmed, Dreaming and the presence of ancestors, ancestral, family and other connections of the Claimants in respect of their native title estates, their access to and use of country prior to the compensable acts and the development of the McArthur River mine. Notably, the Court accepted the pervasiveness of the spiritual significance and Dreamings across the landscape extending beyond particular sites and locations, as well as the significant impact of the project on the Dreamings, in particular the diversion of the McArthur River mine. The Court also heard evidence relating to the impact of the mine on their access to land, the effects of the mine on their community and registered sacred sites and the consultation with the Claimants regarding impacts to these sacred sites, and extensive expert evidence on the environmental impacts of the mine and the effect that such impacts have on the Claimants use of the land and waters and the fact that many aspects of the mine will remain in place in perpetuity. The Court accepted that these environmental impacts would impact on the Claimants' use of and connection to country.

While the court also considered activities that pre-dated the compensable acts and the establishment of the McArthur River mine, port, road and pipeline, such as the use of the mineral lease areas for pastoral activities and the locking of gates by pastoralists, the Court affirmed that evidence of prior diminution of native title does not lessen that actual loss flowing from the compensable acts.

Having regard to this evidence, the Court accepted the Claimants had experienced a compensable cultural loss, which was significant and ongoing, but rejected the Claimants' suggested approach of determining cultural loss on a per hectare value derived from Griffiths. Cultural loss is not dependant on size, but accepted the scale of impact was relevant to determining compensation for cultural loss. The Court found the compensable acts' harm to Dreamings was the 'primary loss' in the context of compensation for cultural loss, although other matters were taken into account, such as environmental impacts and the fact that Claimants were consulted in respect of impacts to sacred sites.

Ultimately, the court considered an appropriate award to compensate the Claimants for cultural loss was AUD$60 million, but reduced this amount by 10% to make allowance for the fact that the Claimants had entered into an indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) with the mine operator under the NTA.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}