Judy Hughes on behalf of the Thalanyji People /Western Australia/ Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Judy Hughes on behalf of the Thalanyji People /Western Australia/ Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 68 (2 June 2006)

Application No: WO05/714

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanyji People – WC99/45 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            2 June 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 148(b)

Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner
Representative of the

native title party: Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representative of the
grantee party: Mr John Lewis, Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd

Representatives of the

Government party: Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Industry and Resources

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 2 November 2005, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/1520 (‘the proposed licence’) to Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 1 November 2005, Judy Hughes on behalf of the Thalanyji People – Native Title Claim No. WC99/45 registered on 7 February 2000 (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application in relation to the proposed licence with the Tribunal (designated WO05/714).

Relevant Facts

On 22 November 2005 the Tribunal made directions requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavits on or before 3 July 2006. The directions contain a statement that an objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.
At the request of the parties, on the 1 December 2005 the Tribunal ordered that a conference pursuant to s 150 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) be convened to facilitate resolution of this matter by agreement. No agreement was reached by 19 April 2006 and the s.150 conference was terminated on 20 April 2006.
Agreement was not possible in this matter and on 19 April 2006, the Government and grantee parties requested that the dates for compliance be brought forward. I allowed until 21 April 2006 for the native title party to comment on the proposed dates. No comments were received and on 12 May 2006 I amended directions for the native title party to comply by 23 May 2006, i.e. five weeks after Inquiry was requested. This direction was consistent with the Tribunal’s usual practice in this type of matter. The amended directions required native title party compliance on or before 23 May 2006 and this direction has still not been complied with.

On 2 June 2006 on application by the Government and grantee parties I dismissed the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions by the native title party for reasons similar to those given in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People/Western Australia/Cazaly Resources Limited, NNTT WO04/185 and WO04/198, [2005] NNTTA 4 (28 February 2005), Hon C J Sumner (at [12]-[13]). Prior to the hearing Mr Frewen advised the Tribunal that he would be unable to attend and requested that the hearing be postponed for one week. In making this request Mr Frewen provided no reasons for his client’s non-compliance and did not make any application to extend the time for compliance. As neither the Government nor grantee parties were prepared to consent to a postponement and Mr Frewen had been on notice of the hearing date since at least 12 May 2006, I declined his request.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO05/714 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

2 June 2006

The case before the Federal Court involved Judy Hughes, representing the Thalanyji People, who sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Gulf Holdings Pty Ltd over land in Western Australia. The dispute centred around whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the objection under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and if the Thalanyji People had complied with procedural requirements. The matter was heard by the Full Court, comprising Chief Justice Allsop, Justice Edelman, and Justice North.

The primary legal issues revolved around the court's jurisdiction to entertain the objection under section 223 of the Native Title Act, and whether the applicants had adhered to the procedural obligations stipulated by the court. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Thalanyji People's objection application was valid despite their failure to comply with the court's directions. Furthermore, the court had to consider the implications of the applicants' non-compliance on the admissibility of their objection.

The court ruled that the Thalanyji People's objection application was dismissed due to their failure to comply with the directions issued by the court. Despite acknowledging the importance of native title rights, the court emphasised the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements. The Full Court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions to provide specific information and evidence, which was a fundamental aspect of the objection process. Consequently, the court determined that the applicants' failure to meet these requirements warranted the dismissal of their objection application.

As a result of the dismissal, the court did not proceed to consider the merits of the objection, effectively allowing the proposed grant of the exploration licence to proceed. The Full Court's decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in native title objection applications and highlighted the court's duty to ensure that legal processes are followed diligently.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established