Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 42 (27 April 2006)

Application No: WO05/816

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-

Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            27 April 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 Alf Valentine, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

Representatives of the

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 16 November 2005, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E26/109 (‘the proposed licence’) to Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 12 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 licence with the Tribunal.

Relevant Facts

On 6 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 17 July 2005. 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.
On 20 December 2005 the Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters. Accordingly on 3 February 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 14 April 2006 and this direction has not been complied with.
On 27 April 2006 on application by the Government and grantee party I dismissed the objection applications 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 WO05/816 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

27 April 2006

Leonne Velickovic, on behalf of the Widji People, filed an objection against Western Australia and Anglogold Ashanti Australia Ltd concerning a proposed grant of an exploration licence for gold mining. The objection was lodged under the expedited procedure, pursuant to section 51CA(4) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Widji People argued that the grant of the licence would irreversibly affect their native title rights and interests. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the objection application should be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with specific procedural directions provided by the court.

The court examined the procedural history of the case, noting that the applicant had been directed to provide certain documents and particulars by specific deadlines. The applicant had failed to comply with these directions, leading to significant delays and prejudice to the respondent. The court held that the applicant's failure to adhere to the procedural requirements was a serious matter, as it undermined the efficiency of the court process and potentially prejudiced the respondents. The court concluded that, in light of the applicant's non-compliance, the objection application should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the objection application on the grounds of the applicant's failure to comply with procedural directions. The court noted that the applicant's conduct had caused significant delays and prejudice to the respondents. As a result, the court held that the objection application was not in the interests of justice to proceed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural directions in such matters, given the potential impact on native title rights and interests. The court's decision was final, and no further objection applications could be made concerning the proposed grant of the exploration licence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established