Henry Richard Dimer & Ors on behalf of Marlinyu Ghoorlie v Lyndon Scott Mahoney and Another

[2025] NNTTA 2

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Henry Richard Dimer & Ors on behalf of Marlinyu Ghoorlie v Lyndon Scott Mahoney and Another [2025] NNTTA 2 (22 January 2025)

Application No: WO2024/0641

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

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

(native title party)

- and -

Lyndon Scott Mahoney

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:	Mr Glen Kelly
Place:	Perth
Date:	22 January 2025

Catchwords:	Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – s 148(b) – objection application dismissed
Legislation:	Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 148(b)
Cases:	Michael Daniel Teelow/Michael Page/Northern Territory [2001] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (Teelow v Page)
Representative of the native title party:	Parsa Ardestani, Houston Legal

Representative of the grantee party: Lyndon Mahoney

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

REASONS FOR DISMISSAL    

1. On 8 May 2024, the State of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P 27/2584 to Lyndon Scott Mahoney. The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the proposed licence is an act attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act.

2. The licence is located approximately 18 km east of Broad Arrow and sits wholly within the registered native title claim area of Marlinyu Ghoorlie (WC2017/007, WAD647/2017).

3. On 25 July 2024, Marlinyu Ghoorlie lodged an objection application with the National Native Title Tribunal in response to the State's assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licence. The objection application was 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 licence is an act 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 purpose of an inquiry into this matter.

2. On 16 October 2024, I made directions for the conduct of the inquiry. Marlinyu Ghoorlie was directed to provide contentions and evidence by 18 December 2024 however on the date of compliance, no material was received from Marlinyu Ghoorlie and neither was a request made for an extension of time.

3. On 7 January 2025, the Tribunal emailed all parties, noting that Marlinyu Ghoorlie had failed to comply and that the objection application was now at risk of dismissal. Parties were provided until close of business 14 January 2025 to provide a response. No response from any party was received.

Consideration of Dismissal

1. Under 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 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 principles relevant in considering dismissal of an objection application for failure to comply with directions are set out in the Tribunal's decision in Teelow v Page at [13]. I have applied those principles in my consideration of this matter.

3. On this occasion, it is my view that Marlinyu Ghoorlie has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress the objection application 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 an extension has been made. 

4. Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.

Determination

1. The expedited procedure objection application in relation to prospecting licence P 27/2584 is dismissed under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

Mr Glen Kelly
Member
22 January 2025