The Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation, which helped scuttle the controversial $1 billion McPhillamys Gold Project in central NSW, have been named as respondents in a Federal Court application seeking a review and compensation from the Federal Government's U-turn to protect parts of the area on cultural grounds.

Regis Resources on Thursday applied to the Federal Court of Australia seeking judicial review and relief in respect of the decision by Environment Tanya Plibersek to declare protection over part of McPhillamys in the Blayney area under Section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.

Her decision based on potential impact on cultural sites of significance to the WTOCWAC prohibited a large tailings dam near the Belubula River, a key part of the project's infrastructure.

Regis is seeking the Section 10 Declaration to be declared legally invalid, that the Application be redetermined by a different Minister, and an award of costs to Regis for legal proceedings. It contends clear advice of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council - that the area did not hold cultural significance – was not considered by the Minister.

OLALC members – who have been contacted for comment – have also disputed significant elements of the claimed Dreaming story, which underpinned the evidence in Ms Plibersek's Statement of Reasons.

OLALC was furious Ms Plibersek discounted its knowledge and expertise as the elected Indigenous body for the area ahead of the Bathurst-based Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation, who also participated in years of consultation but never mentioned the blue-banded bee dreaming Songline at the heart of the Minister's declaration.

Wiradjuri Elder Uncle Neil Ingram backed highly-respected anthropologist Dr Phillip Clarke, who wrote three reports in three years about Wiradjuri culture and tradition, based on an audit of the public records.

"I have never heard of this story, never seen any ochre artworks, rock engravings or traditional dances symbolising the blue-banded bee story," he told The Australian.

Mr Ingram, one of five Wiradjuri people who spoke for OLALC at an eleventh-hour investigation Ms Plibersek assembled last December, claimed WTOCWAC attributed the blue-banded bee dreaming story to an Elder who died in 2022.

"(He) is deceased and can't be questioned to validate the Bathurst groups claims," Mr Ingram told Ms Plibersek at the meeting.

On this basis, the court application alleges the Minister did not apply procedural fairness in her decision, and critical findings of fact were mistaken, ultimately making the declaration legally invalid.

The ATSIHP Act requires the Minister receives a report covering important issues relevant to the decision, including the particular significance of area to Aboriginal Heritage (Section 10 Report).

Regis said the Section 10 Report prepared by an external expert found there was insufficient evidence for the Minister to be satisfied the specified area was of "particular significance", within the meaning of the ATSIHP Act.

The company alleges Ms Plisbersek failed to properly consider this report, and that entirely new claims of Aboriginal heritage she received from rival dissident group WTOCWAC, after the Section 10 Report was prepared in May 2022, failed to treat these claims as either a new, separate Section 10 application, or request they be reviewed and tested in an updated Section 10 Report.

The Minister also did not provide Regis with all the information she relied on to make the Section 10 Declaration, which Regis said had also effectively prohibited activity in the declared area "in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition".

The company said the uncertainty associated with the Section 10 Declaration meant it was legally invalid and, given Ms Plibersek would not consider redetermining the Section 10 Application, redetermination by a different Minister was sought.

Regis Resources chief executive Jim Beyer said none of the expert evidence produced during the years seeking approval for the project and respond to the Section 10 Application indicated there was cultural heritage that could not be appropriately managed.

"In the weeks following the Minister's decision, it has become clear that key findings made regarding Aboriginal cultural heritage are vigorously disputed," he said.

"Our hope is the... Court will find that the Section 10 Declaration is legally invalid and that an alternative decision maker will properly evaluate the claims before them before making a new decision."

The Section 10 Declaration has also prohibited any activity in the declared area "in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition" amongst other prohibitions. Regis considers the uncertainty associated with the Section 10 Declaration means it is legally invalid.

Given that Regis considers the Minister could not now bring an open mind to redetermining the Section 10 Application, one element of the judicial relief sought is that the decision be referred for re-determination by a different Minister.

Regis Resources said it did not intend to seek costs from WTOCWAC, who have also been contacted for comment.