Albert Little and Others on behalf of Badimia/Western Australia/ PM Prospecting Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Albert Little and Others on behalf of Badimia/Western Australia/ PM Prospecting Pty Ltd, [2009] NNTTA 10 (11 February 2009)

Application No: WO08/412

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Albert Little and Others on behalf of Badimia – (WC96/98) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

PM Prospecting Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:                  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  11 February 2009

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – tenement granted - 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 30 January 2008, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E20/651 to PM Prospecting Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 3 April 2008, Albert Little and Others on behalf of Badimia – Native Title Claim No. WC96/98 – registered from 4 October 1996 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 6 February 2009, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E20/651 was granted on 27 January 2009 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC96/98.

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 WO08/412 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
11 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case involving Albert Little and others on behalf of Badimia/Western Australia/PM Prospecting Pty Ltd concerns a dispute relating to the proposed grant of an exploration licence. The applicants, who claim native title rights, objected to the grant of the licence on the basis that it would adversely affect their native title rights. They sought an expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993 to challenge the grant. The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the objection and whether the proposed grant would adversely affect the applicants' native title rights.

The court considered the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Native Title Act and whether the proposed grant of the exploration licence constituted a 'future act'. It was necessary to determine if the Tribunal could hear objections to the grant of a licence that had already been issued. The court examined the nature of the applicants' native title rights and whether they were likely to be adversely affected by the proposed grant. It was also important to assess whether the excision of the tenement from the native title claim area was justified and whether the applicants had standing to object to the grant.

The court found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection application as the tenement had already been granted. The court held that the proposed grant of the exploration licence did not constitute a future act that could be objected to under the Native Title Act. The court further determined that the excision of the tenement from the native title claim area was justified and that the applicants did not have standing to object to the grant. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the applicants' objection to the grant of the exploration licence. The court's ruling clarified the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the limitations of the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act. The decision underscores the importance of timely objection to future acts that may affect native title rights and the need for applicants to establish their standing to challenge such acts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established