Adam Standard & Others on behalf of Ngarlawangga People/Western Australia/Montrose Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Adam Standard & Others on behalf of Ngarlawangga People/Western Australia/Montrose Resources Ltd, [2008] NNTTA 64 (13 May 2008)

Application No: WO07/1467

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application

Adam Standard & Others on behalf of Ngarlawangga People (WC05/3) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Montrose Resources Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:                  Graeme Neate, President
Place:  Adelaide
Date:  13 May 2008

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)

Cases:David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 29 August 2007, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E52/2073 to Montrose Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 10 December 2007, Adam Standard & Others on behalf of Ngarlawangga People (WC05/3 – registered from 9 June 2005) (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 12 May 2008, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E52/2073 was granted on 29 April 2008 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC05/3.

Relevant Facts

The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner). Further, in this case the grant was not a future act as native title was not affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

The expedited procedure objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Graeme Neate
President
13 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Adam Standard and others representing the Ngarlawangga People, who contested the proposed grant of an exploration licence by Montrose Resources Ltd. The dispute centred around the impact of the proposed licence on native title rights and the appropriate legal framework for resolving such conflicts. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with adjudicating on the objection application under the Native Title Act 1993.

The key legal issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the Native Title Registration Tribunal over the proposed exploration licence. The court had to determine whether the Tribunal had the authority to hear an objection application concerning the excision of a tenement from a native title claim and the potential impact on the native title holders' rights. Additionally, the court considered whether the dispute was appropriately categorised under the expedited procedure provisions of the Native Title Act.

The court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the objection application regarding the excision of the tenement from the native title claim. The court reasoned that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to matters concerning the registration of native title, not disputes about the grant of exploration licences. The court further determined that the dispute did not fall within the expedited procedure provisions as it did not involve a future act that was likely to have a significant impact on native title rights. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed.

The court's decision underscores the importance of correctly identifying the jurisdiction and applicable legal frameworks when dealing with disputes involving native title and exploration activities. The ruling highlights the need for clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities between the Federal Court and the Native Title Registration Tribunal. The court's determination provides guidance on the procedural requirements for objection applications and the limitations of the expedited procedure provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established