Singleton Station water licence overturned: implications for government and businesses in the NT

Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing as delegate of the Minister for the Environment

On 5 August 2026, the High Court of Australia decided a challenge brought by traditional owners to a decision granting a substantial groundwater extraction licence for farming purposes at Singleton Station in the Northern Territory.

Fortune Agribusiness Funds Management Pty Ltd is the lessee of Singleton Station, situated in the Western Davenport region of the Northern Territory between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. The Station is located above significant groundwater reserves.

To support the Singleton Horticultural Project, involving approximately 3,300 hectares of intensive irrigated horticulture, Fortune applied for a licence to extract up to 40,000 megalitres (40 gigalitres) of groundwater each year for a period of 30 years.

At the relevant time, the Water Act 1992 (NT) limited water extraction licences to a maximum term of 10 years unless ‘special circumstances’ justified a longer period.

On 15 November 2021, the Northern Territory Minister granted Fortune a 30-year licence.

The traditional owners of the area, the Kaytetye people, represented by Mpwerempwer Aboriginal Corporation (MAC), challenged the decision.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court and Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision.

However, the High Court unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the licence and remitted the matter to the Minister to be determined according to law.

The successful grounds of appeal concerned:

• the statutory requirement a licence longer than 10 years could only be granted if the Minister was satisfied special circumstances justified the longer period. The High Court found the Minister had not formed the state of satisfaction required by the legislation and therefore had not discharged the required statutory task, and
• procedural fairness. The High Court found the traditional owners were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the Minister imposed licence condition CP10, including the requirement Fortune undertake and submit an Aboriginal cultural values impact assessment.

The High Court’s decision provides important guidance about:

• the role and significance of reasons in administrative decision-making, including when omissions from statutory reasons may support an inference a decision-maker failed to perform the task required by legislation, and
• the circumstances in which an affected person must be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on a matter that may materially affect their rights or interests before an administrative decision is made.

Sparke Helmore will unpack in more detail the High Court’s decision and its implications for our government and business clients in a second article on this matter. In the meantime, please contact our Darwin office for further information.