Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Claim Group/Western Australia/Royce William Allen

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Claim Group/Western Australia/Royce William Allen [2013] NNTTA 79 (2 July 2013)

Application No: WO2013/0550, WO2013/0551

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Claim Group (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Royce William Allen (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Daniel O’Dea
Place:  Perth
Date:  2 July 2013

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 ExplorationNL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

Representative of the Sonya Hills, Goldfield Land and Sea Council
native title party:
Representative of the

Government party: Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Karl Wolzak, Resource Mapping Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 30 January 2013 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant Prospecting licences P27/2151-S and P27/2152-S to Royce William Allen (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 28 May 2013, Cyril Barnes & Ors on behalf of Central East Claim Group (WC1999/030) registered from 4 October 1999, made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 27 June 2013 the Government party advised the Tribunal that Prospecting licences P27/2151-S and P27/2152-S were granted on 24 June 2013 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within the Central East Claim Group native title claim area.

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, as all the land capable of claim has been excluded from the grant it is not a future act as native title would not be affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa ExplorationNL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO2013/0550 and WO2013/0551 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Daniel O’Dea
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Cyril Barnes and others on behalf of the Central East Claim Group, contesting Western Australia over a proposed exploration licence grant. The dispute centred on the implications of such a grant on their native title rights, particularly in light of the excision of a tenement from their native title claim. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, which had to decide on an objection application filed under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) regarding the grant of an exploration licence.

The court was required to determine whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear an objection application concerning a future act, specifically the grant of an exploration licence, when the native title determination did not include the area in question. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of the expedited procedure for objection applications under the Native Title Act when the Tribunal had already dismissed a similar objection application.

The Federal Court found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the objection application because the tenement in question had been excised from the native title claim. The court held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Native Title Act was limited to the areas recognised as native title in the native title determination. Given that the tenement had been excised, the Tribunal could not entertain the objection application. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and the specific requirements for bringing an objection application under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established