Albert Little & Others on behalf of Badimia/Western Australia/Aurora Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Albert Little & Others on behalf of Badimia/Western Australia/Aurora Resources Pty Ltd, [2008] NNTTA 78 (24 June 2008)

Application No: WO07/851

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 -

Aurora Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:                  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  24 June 2008

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 9 May 2007, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E57/672 to Aurora Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 29 August 2007, Albert Little and Others on behalf of Badimia (WC96/98 – registered from 4 October 1996) (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 20 June 2008, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E57/672 was granted on 20 June 2008 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 WO07/851 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
24 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, representing Badimia/Western Australia/Aurora Resources Pty Ltd, brought an objection application against the grant of an exploration licence over native title land in Western Australia. They sought to challenge the proposed grant, arguing that it would result in an excision of their native title land. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Federal Court of Australia had jurisdiction to hear the objection application and whether the application should be dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the objection application. The applicants argued that the court had jurisdiction under section 22E of the Native Title Act 1993, which allows for expedited procedures in relation to future acts that may affect native title. The respondents contended that the court lacked jurisdiction because the exploration licence had already been granted, and therefore the act had already occurred. The court had to determine whether the proposed grant of the exploration licence constituted a "future act" within the meaning of the Act.

In determining the issue, the court found that the proposed grant of the exploration licence did not constitute a "future act" within the meaning of the Native Title Act 1993 because the tenement had already been granted at the time the objection application was made. The court held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection application, as the act had already occurred. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, and the grant of the exploration licence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision of the Federal Court was that the objection application was dismissed, and the grant of the exploration licence over the native title land was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established