Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Baracus Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Baracus Pty Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 41 (27 April 2006)

Application Nos: WO05/819 WO05/822

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of inquiries into expedited procedure objection applications

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

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Baracus Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            27 April 2006

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting and exploration licences - expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – objection applications 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 Matthew Clohessy, Emerald Tenement Services

Representatives of the

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

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 prospecting licence P26/3245 and exploration licence E24/135 (‘the proposed licences’) to Baracus 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 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 expedited procedure objection applications in relation to P26/3245 (WO05/819) and E24/135 (WO05/822) with the Tribunal.

Relevant Facts

On 6 December 2005 the Tribunal made directions for each objection 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.
The Tribunal was advised by the representative for the grantee party that agreement was not possible in these matters on 20 December 2005. 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 parties 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 applications WO05/819 and WO05/822 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

27 April 2006

The case involved Leonne Velickovic, representing the Widji People, against the State of Western Australia and Baracus Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the grant of prospecting and exploration licences, which the Widji People claimed would infringe on their native title rights. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where expedited procedure objection applications were filed by the Widji People. The court was tasked with determining whether the applications should proceed and whether the Widji People's objections to the proposed grants were valid.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the Widji People's objection applications complied with the necessary procedural requirements and whether the applications should be dismissed for failing to adhere to specific directions issued by the court. Another key issue was whether the proposed grants of prospecting and exploration licences would indeed infringe upon the native title rights of the Widji People, and if such infringement warranted a halt or modification of the proposed activities.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Widji People had not complied with the procedural directions provided, resulting in the dismissal of their objection applications. The court held that the procedural non-compliance was significant and warranted the dismissal of the applications. The court also considered the merits of the objections but concluded that the procedural failures were sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal without further consideration of the substantive issues. Consequently, the objection applications were dismissed, allowing the proposed grants to proceed.

No final orders were made in the judgment regarding the substantive rights or the proposed grants, as the dismissal was based on procedural grounds. The court did not reach a determination on the validity of the Widji People's claims concerning the infringement of their native title rights by the proposed activities.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established