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

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ike Simpson & Others on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji/Western Australia/Rosane Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 113 (27 June 2011)

Application No: WO09/1065

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 & Ors on behalf of Wajarri Yamatji (WC04/10) (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Rosane Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:              14 March 2011
Date of reasons:                 27 June 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order dismissing expedited procedure objection application in 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

Representatives of the

native title party: Ms Alissa Lovering, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

Representatives of the
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representatives of the
grantee party:  Mr Chris Clegg, Statewide Tenement & Advisory Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 26 August 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P20/2122 to Rosane Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 18 December 2009, Ike Simpson & Ors 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 a status conference on 2 February 2011 the native title party requested a four week extension to compliance of directions to allow time to produce contentions and evidence should the matter proceed to inquiry. On 10 February 2011 I approved the native title party’s request to amend directions 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 14 March 2011 (see Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103).
Neither contentions nor evidence were received from the native title party on or before 14 March 2011 and no explanation was 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 WO09/1065.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO09/1065 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
27 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court involved a dispute concerning native title claims and a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. Ike Simpson and others, on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji, along with Western Australia and Rosane Pty Ltd, brought the action. The applicants contested the grant of a prospecting licence to another party, citing potential impacts on their native title rights. The court was tasked with determining whether the objection to the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993 should be dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with specific directions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' failure to adhere to the court's directions warranted the dismissal of their objection to the use of the expedited procedure. The applicants had been ordered to provide certain information and documents, but they did not comply with these directions. This raised questions about the procedural fairness and the court's ability to manage the case effectively. The court needed to balance the procedural requirements with the need for an efficient resolution of the dispute.

The court held that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions was a significant procedural breach. It found that this non-compliance undermined the fairness of the process and the court's ability to make an informed decision. The court also noted that the applicants had ample opportunity to comply with the directions but chose not to do so. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application. Additionally, the court issued a springing order that would automatically dismiss the objection if the applicants failed to comply with future directions. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established