Billy Atkins & Ors on behalf of Gingirana/Western Australia/Audax Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Billy Atkins & Ors on behalf of Gingirana/Western Australia/Audax Resources Ltd, [2010] NNTTA 92 (1 July 2010)

Application No: WO10/604

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Billy Atkins & Ors on behalf of Gingirana (WC06/2) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Audax Resources Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  1 July 2010

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) ss 29, 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

Representative of the
native title party:            Ms Anna Liscia, Liscia & Tavelli Legal Consultants
Representatives of the    Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Government party: Ms Claire Malavaux, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Glen Edwards, Audax Resources Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 13 January 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E52/2394 to Audax Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 7 May 2010, Billy Atkins & Ors on behalf of Gingirana (WC06/2 – registered from 13 April 2006) made an expedited procedure application to the Tribunal.
On 28 June 2010, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E52/2394 was granted on 16 June 2010 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC06/2.

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

Expedited procedure objection application WO10/604 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
1 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Billy Atkins and others on behalf of the Gingirana people against Western Australia and Audax Resources Limited, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with addressing a dispute concerning the granting of an exploration licence over land claimed under native title. The Gingirana people objected to the proposed grant of the licence, which would affect an area that had been excised from their native title claim. The court was required to determine whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Native Title Tribunal, which had dismissed the objection application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the authority to review the decision of the Native Title Tribunal dismissing the objection application regarding the proposed grant of the exploration licence. The court had to consider the statutory framework governing native title claims, including the Native Title Act 1993, and determine if the Tribunal's decision was subject to judicial review. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the objection application, particularly in light of the excision of the tenement from the native title claim.

The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Native Title Tribunal. The court found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the objection application, as the tenement in question had been excised from the native title claim. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The court emphasised that the decision of the Tribunal was not subject to judicial review, as it was beyond the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court also noted that the statutory framework did not provide for the review of such decisions by the Federal Court.

No orders were made by the court, as it found that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the decision of the Native Title Tribunal. The dismissal of the objection application by the Tribunal was upheld, and the proposed grant of the exploration licence was not subject to further judicial scrutiny in the Federal Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established