Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Matara Gold Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Matara Gold Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 117 (28 June 2011)

Application No:                  WO10/1675
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji (WC04/10) (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-
Matara Gold Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal:              13 June 2011
Date of reasons:                28 June 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order dismissing expedited procedure objection application in the event of non-compliance – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103
Representative of the
native title party:              Ms Alissa Lovering, Yamatji Land and Sea Council
Representative of the
Government party:            Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Evan Harris

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 25 August 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence E51/1441 to Matara Gold Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 27 December 2010, Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji – Native Title Claim No WC04/10, registered from 5 December 2005 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

Relevant facts

At the listing hearing on 12 May 2011 the native title party requested a five week extension to allow time to collect evidence and prepare for inquiry. As the native title party had known since 23 March 2011 that the grantee party had requested the matter to proceed to inquiry, I approved the native title party’s request and imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act in the event of non-compliance by the native title party by the due date, being 13 June 2011 (see Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103).
Neither contentions nor evidence have been received from the native title party on or before 13 June 2011 and no explanation has been offered for the failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions despite the native title party having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply. The springing order has resulted in dismissal of WO10/1675.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO10/1675 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
28 June 2011

The case involved Ike Simpson and others on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji, which contested the proposed grant of an exploration licence by Western Australia and Matara Gold Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to object to the grant of an exploration licence under an expedited procedure, claiming that it would affect their native title rights.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set by the court and the consequences of their non-compliance. The court was particularly focused on the applicants' failure to comply with specific directions regarding the provision of certain documents and information necessary for the hearing of the objection.

The court held that the applicants had not complied with the directions given by the court. As a result, the court was required to consider the effect of the non-compliance on the objection application. The court noted that there was a springing order in place, which provided that if the applicants failed to comply with the directions, the objection application would be dismissed. Given the non-compliance, the court dismissed the objection application. The court concluded that the failure to comply with the procedural requirements was significant and warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the objection application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established