Henry Richard Dimer & Ors on behalf of Marlinyu Ghoorlie v Caprice Resources Pty Ltd & Anor

[2024] NNTTA 39

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Henry Richard Dimer & Ors on behalf of Marlinyu Ghoorlie v Caprice Resources Pty Ltd & Anor [2024] NNTTA 39 (28 May 2024)

Application No: WO2023/0846, WO2023/0847

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Henry Richard Dimer & Ors on behalf of Marlinyu Ghoorlie (WC2017/007)

(native title party)

- and -

Caprice Resources Pty Ltd

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:	Mr Glen Kelly
Place:	Perth
Date:	28 May 2024

Catchwords:

​Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – s 148(b) – objection applications dismissed

Legislation:

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 148(b)

Cases:

David Stock & Others on behalf of the Nyiyaparli People/Western Australia/Giralia Resources NL [2000] NNTA 333 (Stock v Giralia)

Michael Daniel Teelow/Michael Page/Northern Territory [2001] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (Teelow v Page)

Representative of the native title party:

Rachel McGarry, Houston Legal & Consultants

Representative of the grantee party: Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

Representative of the Government party: Andrea Wyles & David Crabtree, Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

Background

1. On 20 September 2023, the State of Western Australia (State) gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences E 70/6519 and E 70/6520 (proposed licences) to Caprice Resources Pty Ltd. The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the proposed licences as acts attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act (expedited procedure statement).

2. If the expedited procedure applies, the State may grant the proposed licences without requiring parties to enter into the right to negotiate procedure per s 31 of the Native Title Act.

3. The proposed licences are located north and north-west of Mukinbudin, with an approximate area of 197 km². The proposed licences sit wholly within the registered native title claim area of Marlinyu Ghoorlie (WC2017/007, WAD647/2017) (Marlinyu Ghoorlie).

4. On 30 October 2023, the legal representative for Marlinyu Ghoorlie lodged objections with the National Native Title Tribunal (Tribunal) in response to the State's assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licences. The objection applications were lodged within the timeframe outlined in s 32(3) of the Native Title Act and therefore, under s 32(4), the Tribunal is required to determine whether the grant of the proposed licences are acts attracting the expedited procedure.

Relevant Facts

1. Under a delegation from the President of the Tribunal, I was appointed to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of the inquiry in these matters.

2. On 20 March 2024, I made directions requiring all parties to provide contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry. Per those directions, Marlinyu Ghoorlie were directed to provide their contentions and evidence by 8 May 2024. On the date of compliance, the Tribunal did not receive any contentions or evidence from Marlinyu Ghoorlie.

3. On 15 March 2024, the Tribunal emailed all parties, noting that Marlinyu Ghoorlie had failed to comply and that the objections were now at risk of dismissal per s 148(b) of the Native Title Act. Parties were given until close of business 22 May 2024 to provide a response. No response was received from any party at this time. 

4. On 24 May 2024, the Tribunal wrote to all parties and confirmed that Marlinyu Ghoorlie had not provided a response and the matters would be considered for dismissal.

Consideration of Dismissal

1. Pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act, the Tribunal may dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the native title party fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the objection application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal. While the Tribunal has broad discretion to dismiss an objection application, doing so has significant consequences for the native title party and is not an action taken lightly.

2. The nature of the expedited procedure and the principles relevant to consideration of dismissal of an objection application for failure to comply with directions, are set out in the Tribunal's decision in Teelow v Page ([13]). I have applied those principles in my consideration of these matters.

3. On this occasion, it is my view that Marlinyu Ghoorlie has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress these objection applications but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. Marlinyu Ghoorlie have failed to comply with directions set by the Tribunal, have not provided reasoning for their non-compliance and no request for extension has been made. 

4. Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of these matters, I am satisfied that the objection applications should be dismissed.

Determination

1. The expedited procedure objection applications in relation to E 70/6519 and E 70/6520 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

Mr Glen Kelly
Member
28 May 2024