In the landmark decision in Shire of Mount Magnet v Atlantic Vanadium Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 274, the Supreme Court held that occupied Crown Land the subject of a miscellaneous licence issued under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) is ratable under section 6.26 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

That decision created uncertainty across the resources industry by opening up the possibility that mining companies could be charged rates on land held under miscellaneous licences that had long been understood to be exempt (such as for rail, pipelines, roads, FIFO accommodation). This interpretation would have cost the mining and exploration sector an estimated $50 million plus per annum.

On 13 November 2025, the Legislative Assembly passed the above Bill to clarify that land held under miscellaneous licences cannot be subject to local government rates. The Bill is currently in the Second Reading stage in the Legislative Council.

The Bill establishes a refund mechanism for any rates, interest, or charges that have been imposed and paid to date on these licences.

The new State Development Bill 2025 was introduced into the WA Parliament on 10 September 2025 and had its second reading in the Legislative Council on 16 October 2025.

The purpose of the Bill is primarily ”to establish and make provision for the office of Coordinator General; and to provide a framework for the coordination, facilitation and promotion of development and activities of strategic or economic significance to the State”. The Government says the proposed legislation will “unlock strategic precincts, fast-track approvals for major strategic projects around the State and maintain Western Australia as the strongest economy in the nation”.

Under the legislation, the Premier will have powers to declare Priority Projects and State Development Areas. This will be supported by the Coordinator General, who will be delegated statutory powers to accelerate and oversee regulatory processes and industrial land activation, enabling the State to respond rapidly to emerging opportunities and reduce duplication. The Government media releases refer to large-scale critical minerals, renewable energy, energy transition (green iron), naval shipbuilding and multi-user infrastructure projects. However, the scope of the proposed legislation allows for smaller projects to be designated, if the Minister for State Development and the Premier are satisfied as to the project’s significance.

A key concern is that the Bill places a significant level of discretion in the hands of the State Development Minister and the Premier (currently the same person).

The Environmental Defenders Office is also concerned that, as well as centralising too much power in the executive arm of government, the Bill creates serious risks of undermining the intended operation of WA laws and ultimately harming the environmental and community/cultural values of WA.

Unusually, the Bill is not made subject to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) in the event of inconsistency.

The Law Society has made a submission to Roger Cook as the Premier and Minister for State Development setting out the Law Society’s concerns in regard to the Bill. The submission can be read here.

In September 2025, the Australian Government announced a A$1.1 billion investment in supporting the future Australian production of low carbon liquid fuels (LCLF). The new ten-year Cleaner Fuels Program aims to stimulate private investment in Australian onshore production of LCLFs, such as renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, with first production estimated by 2029.

LCLFs are produced from feedstocks such as canola, sorghum, sugar and waste. With its advanced farming practices and access to cheap and reliable renewable energy, Australia is well positioned to produce LCLFs that jets, ships, construction machines and heavy trucks need to reach net zero. The Clean Energy Funding Corporation predicts that the production of LCLF could be a A$36 billion market opportunity for Australia.

The Government has now released a Policy Design and Engagement Paper for its Cleaner Fuels Program which is open for submissions until 19 December 2025. The Program is expected to be launched and applications open in mid-202

The annual RIU Explorers Conference was held in Fremantle in February 2026. The conference highlighted a highly optimistic exploration environment driven by record gold prices above US $5,000/oz and strong copper markets.

More than 130 ASX-listed companies presented updates across gold, copper, manganese, uranium, and critical mineral portfolios, reflecting strong operational momentum across the junior and emerging-producer segments. Attendance from brokers, funds and institutional investors was notably high, signalling strong capital interest in early stage exploration companies. RIU is one of the most important national forums for capital raising in the exploration sector.

A major theme was the emergence of a potential multiyear commodities super cycle, underpinned by AI driven energy demand, electrification, geopolitical instability, and declining discovery rates.

Critical minerals—including rare earths, nickel, lithium, and tin—also drew strong attention due to supply constraints and technologysector demand
Operationally, companies emphasised tight cost control, integrated geological, operational, and financial data systems, and transparent ESG reporting as investor expectations around credible, auditable ESG reporting continue to rise.

In summary, the conference reflected a sector positioned for growth, with high investor interest, strong commodity fundamentals, and increasing strategic focus on critical minerals and datadriven decisionmaking.

Australian-owned renewable energy company Tilt Renewables announced reaching a Final Investment Decision in December 2025 for its 108 MW Waddi Wind Farm in the West Australian wheat belt, 150km north of Perth.

This is the Company’s first renewable energy project in WA and the first wind farm to reach FID in 2025. The project has a 15 year supply contract with AGL and the Company says that once constructed, the energy generation from the Wind Farm will be equivalent to powering around 68,000 West Australian homes per year with clean electricity.

Construction is expected to commence shortly with the Company targeting commercial production in 2028.

On 19 December 2025, Gold Valley Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Gold Valley), its subsidiary Odell Resources Pty Ltd (Odell Resources) and the company’s sole director, Yuzheng Xie, pleaded guilty in the Perth Magistrates Court to mining without authority, and the director failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent the offence.

In March 2024, Gold Valley acquired full ownership of the Wiluna West Iron Ore Project and then secured an agreement with the Port of Esperance for ore exports. The ore was trucked by Odell Resources to a site near Leonora for laydown and stockpiling prior to being transported by rail to the port. Gold Valley however did not hold a miscellaneous licence issued under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) allowing it to use the site for these and associated activities. The Company also operated another unauthorised site near Leonora and continued those operations even after receiving directions from the DMPE to cease doing so.

Gold Valley, Odell Resources and director Mr Xie were fined more than $2.34m for unlawful mining.

In this landmark judgement of the Wardens Court, the Warden provides an examination of and practical guidance on how the Court will determine compensation for mining activities over private land under s 123 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA). It is the first substantive judgement of a compensation determination under s 123.

The case concerned a determination of compensation for an exploration drilling program and an open pit mine proposed by Barto Gold Mining Pty Ltd (Barto) on M77/265, which sat on private land in the Marvel Loch area in Western Australia. The landowner, Mr Panizza, alleged that the proposed activities by Barto would result in losses of the capital value of land and income he claimed would be generated from the land. The determination of compensation was sought by Barto after the parties failed to reach an agreement on compensation.

The determination followed an earlier determination of Warden McPhee in Barto Gold Mining Pty Ltd v Peter John Panizza [2025] WAWC 4 in which the Warden found that Barto’s tenements in question were valid. In addition, it was published contemporaneously with the determination in Barto Gold Pty Ltd v Panizza [2025] WAMW 21, in which the Warden granted Barto an application for exemption from expenditure obligations under s 102(3) of the Act for M77/265, due to the difficult relationship between Barto and Mr Panizza and his refusal to negotiate access.

In the compensation case, Warden McPhee considered that there were 4 parts to consider for each determination of compensation:

• What is the likely mining to be undertaken by Barto?
• Is the likely mining, likely to occur?
• What is the loss likely to flow to Mr Panizza as a result of the likely mining?
• What is the form and extent of the necessary consequential orders, having regard to the matters referred to in section 123 of the Act?

In considering compensation for the proposed drilling programme, the Warden found that Barto was required to establish what activities were sought to be established, as being likely to occur, and then whether those mining activities were likely to occur. Barto had satisfied that evidentiary burden. The evidentiary burden then fell on the landowner to establish what losses would likely result. In this case, Mr Panizza had sold the majority of his farmland in the area and his remaining land was not being used in any commercial manner. The Warden rejected his claims for loss of capital value and income, in addition ruling his testimony on permanent soil damage was unqualified opinion evidence.

The Warden found that the drilling programme would not cause any loss to the landowner and awarded him a nominal sum of $100.

In regard to the proposed open pit mine, the Warden declined to determine compensation. Barto had not established that it was likely to undertake the work required for an open pit mine in the absence of further exploration works. Whether or not it went ahead with those further exploration works was dependent on the drilling programme results.

The case provides a timely consideration and determination of the proper construction and operation of s 123 of the Act. By way of practical guidance, it establishes that a miner must satisfy the Court that the specific mining activity is “likely to occur” before compensation can be determined. The onus is then on the landowner to establish evidence of loss, including expert evidence where necessary, to succeed on a claim for compensation.

This matter involved a statutory construction of the “extension of time” provisions under s 162B of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act) and the discretion of the Warden. It concerned competing applications for miscellaneous licences under the Mining Act lodged by Alinta and then subsequently by Pilbara Energy (a Fortescue subsidiary) for wind farm developments in Western Australia.

Alinta lodged objections to Pilbara Energy’s applications, arguing the proximity of the proposed wind farm turbines would negatively impact their own wind energy production. However, some of these objections were out of time, having been lodged outside the 35 day prescribed period. Alinta sought an extension of time under s 162B which was dismissed by the Warden. Alinta then took the decision of the Warden to the Supreme Court on review.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on 9 January 2026, setting aside the decision of the Warden and remitting the decision to the Warden for determination according to the law.
The case changes the decision making process of the Warden in considering applications for extension of time. While the merit of the objection is still a relevant consideration which may be taken into account by the Warden, it is no longer mandatory for the objector to prove a prima facie case to be granted an extension of time.

On 23 February 2026, the Federal Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in the greenwashing case brought by Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) against Santos Limited (Santos), a leading producer and supplier of natural gas in Australia.

The ACCR, which at all material times was a shareholder in Santos, claimed that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in its 2020 Investor Day Presentation, its 2020 Annual Report and its 2021 Climate Change Report. Specifically, the ACCR alleged that Santos had contravened s 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 18 and s 33 of the Australian Consumer Law (being Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL)).

In summary, the ACCR alleged that the use by Santos of “clean energy” and “clean fuel” to describe natural gas and its description of itself as a producer of “clean energy”, its representations in its 2030 Target and Net Zero Roadmap regarding greenhouse gas reduction and net zero targets and its representation to deliver “clean” hydrogen in the future, were misleading.

The action against Santos, commenced by the ACCR in 2021, was considered the first case globally to allege that a company’s net zero target was misleading, rather than just inadequate.

The Court dismissed each of the claims against Santos and ordered the ACCR to pay Santos’ costs. In its thorough examination of the claims, the Court found that the climate related statements by Santos had to be read in context and from the perspective of the relevant target audience. The Court set out in detail what it considered to be the characteristics attributable to the target audience, finding that it was not as specific a subset of investors as contended for by Santos nor as broad as the ACCR submitted.

While Santos was successful in this case, the standard for climate change disclosures remains high and subject to increased scrutiny by ASIC. The case provides practical guidance for companies making climate change disclosures and sustainability related claims.

Commenting on the decision, the ACCR said: “This was the first court case in the world to test a company’s net zero claims, and it has helped drive significant improvements in climate reporting in the Australian market and internationally. It is disappointing that, in our view, the Court’s decision has not reinforced these advancements.”

The judgement runs to over 250 pages and can be found at https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/

On 26 June 2025, the Federal Treasurer commenced action in the Federal Court of Australia against Indian Ocean International Shipping and Service Company Ltd (Indian Ocean) and its former associate for not complying with Australia’s foreign investment law. Indian Ocean and its associate are both foreign investors with links to China, including entities associated with the Chinese-controlled Yuxiao Fund.

The proceedings related to Disposal Orders issued by the Treasurer on 2 June 2024 directing five foreign investors, including Indian Ocean, to dispose of shares in ASX listed Northern Minerals Limited (Northern Minerals) to persons who were not their associates, by 2 September 2024. Those orders were reportedly not complied with by Indian Ocean. In August 2024, Indian Ocean transferred its shares in Northern Minerals to associate Ms Jing Tian, who at the time was the Indian Ocean’s director and sole shareholder.

The Disposal Order was issued to Indian Ocean to address the risk to national security posed by its acquisitions of shares in Northern Minerals. Northern Minerals is developing the Browns Range heavy rare earths project in Western Australia which is of strategic significance to Australia, as it is one of the few non-Chinese sources of certain important critical minerals.

In a landmark ruling on 30 January 2026, the Federal Court of Australia ordered Indian Ocean and Ms Tian to pay $10 million and $4 million respectively in penalties for breaching Australia’s foreign investment laws.

This is the first case of this nature to be brought by a Treasurer before the Federal Court for an alleged breach of the foreign investment laws.