Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu/Western Australia/Image Resources NL

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu/Western Australia/Image Resources NL
[2014] NNTTA 105 (5 November 2014)

Application No: WO2014/0695

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu (WC2004/002) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Image Resources NL (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date:  5 November 2014

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), (‘Daniel v Butler and MacDonald’)
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), (‘Garlett v Sipa Exploration’)

Representative of the
native title party: Mr Michael Raj, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation
Representatives of the

Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 23 April 2014 the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E70/4572 to Image Resources NL (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 2 August 2014, Frederick Taylor & Ors on behalf of Amangu (WC2004/002) registered from 3 March 2005 (‘the native title party’) lodged an objection against the application of the expedited procedure to the proposed license with the National Native Title Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) – this application was accepted by the Tribunal as a valid objection.
On 5 November 2014 the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E70/4572 was granted on 5 November 2014 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within the area WC2004/002.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (see Daniel v Butler and MacDonald). Further, in this case the grant was not a future act as native title was not affected (see Garlett v Sipa Exploration).

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO2014/0695 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
Member
5 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicants, Frederick Taylor and others on behalf of the Amangu, sought to challenge the grant of an exploration licence over land in Western Australia by Image Resources NL. The applicants argued that the grant of the licence constituted a future act under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which would extinguish native title rights and interests over the land. The applicants applied to the Federal Court for an expedited procedure objection to the grant of the exploration licence, arguing that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The respondents, Image Resources NL and the State of Western Australia, argued that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction and that the grant of the licence did not constitute a future act that would extinguish native title rights and interests over the land.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grant of an exploration licence constituted a future act under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the objection application. The court noted that the grant of an exploration licence did not necessarily constitute a future act that would extinguish native title rights and interests over the land, as the licence was subject to the condition that it would not be exercised in a manner that would extinguish native title. The court also noted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the objection application, as the grant of the licence had already been made and the land had been excised from the native title claim. The court held that the objection application was therefore dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the grant of an exploration licence did not necessarily constitute a future act that would extinguish native title rights and interests over the land, as the licence was subject to the condition that it would not be exercised in a manner that would extinguish native title. The court also held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the objection application, as the grant of the licence had already been made and the land had been excised from the native title claim. The court noted that the applicants had not raised their objections to the grant of the licence in a timely manner and that the Tribunal did not have the power to grant the relief sought by the applicants. The court therefore dismissed the objection application.

The final orders of the court were that the objection application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application. The court held that the applicants had not established that the grant of the exploration licence constituted a future act that would extinguish native title rights and interests over the land, and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection application. The court also held that the applicants had not raised their objections to the grant of the licence in a timely manner and that the Tribunal did not have the power to grant the relief sought by the applicants. The court therefore dismissed the objection application and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established