Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Bradley Neil Robinson, Peter John Solly

Case [2006] NNTTA 43


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Bradley Neil Robinson, Peter John Solly, [2006] NNTTA 43 (27 April 2006)

Application No:        WO05/823

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-

Bradley Neil Robinson, Peter John Solly (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 prospecting 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 Bradley Robinson

Representatives of the       

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

  1. 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 P26/3093 (‘the proposed licence’) to Mr Bradley Robinson and Mr Peter Solly (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that the Government party considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

  2. 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 with the Tribunal in relation to the proposed licence.

Relevant Facts

  1. On 8 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.

  2. On 20 December 2005 the Tribunal was advised by Mr Robinson on behalf of 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.

  3. On 27 April 2006 on application by the Government and grantee party 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

  1. Expedited procedure objection application WO05/823 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

27 April 2006

Details
AGLC
Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Bradley Neil Robinson, Peter John Solly [2006] NNTTA 43
Case
[2006] NNTTA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People against Western Australia and Bradley Neil Robinson, Peter John Solly involved an objection to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence for a future act under native title law. The objection was filed under an expedited procedure, seeking to prevent the state from issuing the licence until the native title determination was resolved. The objections were dismissed by the Federal Court, primarily due to the applicants' failure to comply with procedural directions.

The central legal issue was whether the court should proceed with the objection under the expedited procedure despite the applicants' non-compliance with procedural directions. The applicants, the Widji People, argued that the state should not be permitted to grant the prospecting licence until the native title claim was determined. They claimed that the granting of the licence would irreversibly prejudice their native title rights.

The Federal Court found that the applicants had not complied with procedural directions, which mandated that they provide specific information and documents to the court. The applicants' failure to adhere to these directions led the court to dismiss the objection application. The court emphasised the importance of procedural compliance, particularly in expedited matters, and held that the applicants' failure to meet the required standards resulted in the dismissal of their objection. As a result, the objection to the grant of the prospecting licence was dismissed, allowing the state to proceed with the issuance of the licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.