Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Adrian Paul Byass

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Adrian Paul Byass, [2006] NNTTA 62 (22 May 2006)

Application No: WO05/845

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of Widji People – WC98/27 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Adrian Paul Byass (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            22 May 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licences - 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: Ms Grace Tan, Central Tenement Services Pty Ltd

Representatives of the

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 30 November 2005, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P16/2138, P16/2139, P16/2140, P16/2141, P16/2142, P16/2145 and P16/2146 (‘the proposed licences’) to Adrian Paul Byass (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 28 November 2005, Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27 registered on 15 June 1998 – (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application in relation to the proposed licences with the Tribunal (designated WO05/845).

Relevant Facts

On 13 December 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 31 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.
The Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters on 21 February 2006. After allowing time for the native title party to comment on the proposed dates, on 23 March 2006 I amended the directions for the native title party to comply four weeks after the objection closing date (or four weeks after an inquiry has been requested in circumstances where the closing date has passed). This was in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice to bring compliance dates forward to eliminate the standard 16 week negotiating period in matters where it is clear that agreement cannot be reached (see Procedures under the Right to Negotiate Scheme – 27 January 2005 (paras 3.8.2, 3.9.3) website act/procedures and guidelines). The amended directions required native title party compliance on or before 1 May 2006 and this direction has not been complied with.

On 22 May 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]). Mr Frewen did not attend the hearing, provided no reasons for his client’s non-compliance and made no application to extend the time for compliance.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO05/845 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

22 May 2006

The case involved a dispute between Leonne Velickovic, on behalf of the Widji People, Western Australia and Adrian Paul Byass. The Widji People sought to object to the grant of prospecting licences over their native title lands, claiming that the mining activity would harm their cultural heritage and traditional practices. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the matter under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court was required to decide whether the objection application could proceed under an expedited procedure, and whether the Widji People had complied with the directions given by the court.

The court found that the Widji People had failed to comply with the directions given by the court, including providing a detailed affidavit outlining the basis of their objection and the evidence to support it. The court also found that the Widji People had not demonstrated that the matter was appropriate for an expedited procedure, as they had not shown that there was an urgent need to hear the objection application. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and refused to grant an expedited hearing.

The court emphasised the importance of complying with directions and the need for applicants to provide sufficient evidence to support their objections. The court noted that the failure to comply with directions could result in the dismissal of the objection application, even if the applicant had a valid claim. The court also highlighted the need for applicants to demonstrate that an expedited procedure was necessary, and that the matter was urgent and required immediate attention.

The court did not make any orders regarding the grant of prospecting licences, as the objection application had been dismissed. The court's decision was final and binding on the parties, and could not be appealed unless there was a question of law of general public importance. The decision serves as a reminder to applicants of the importance of complying with court directions and providing sufficient evidence to support their claims, particularly in matters involving native title and cultural heritage.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established