Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/North Eastern Goldfields Exploration Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/North Eastern Goldfields Exploration Pty Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 67 (2 June 2006)

Application No: WO05/848

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-

North Eastern Goldfields Exploration 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 Mr Andrew Pumphrey,
grantee party: North Eastern Goldfields Exploration 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 exploration licence P26/3064 (‘the proposed licence’) to North Eastern Goldfields Exploration 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 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 licence with the Tribunal (designated WO05/848).

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 17 February 2006. After allowing an extended period for the native title party to comment on the proposed dates, on 12 May 2006 with the consent of all parties given on 27 April 2006, I amended the directions for the native title party to comply six weeks after the objection closing date. 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 17 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 WO05/848 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

2 June 2006

The case of Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People against Western Australia and North Eastern Goldfields Exploration Pty Ltd involved a dispute over native title and a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, on behalf of the Widji People, lodged an objection to the grant of an exploration licence under the Exploration and Mining Act 1978 (WA). The objection was based on the potential impact on native title rights and interests. The respondents were the State of Western Australia and North Eastern Goldfields Exploration Pty Ltd, the prospective licensee. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the objection application should be dismissed due to the objector's failure to comply with directions issued by the Court. The court was required to consider whether the objector had acted unreasonably or vexatiously, which would warrant the dismissal of the objection application. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the objector had provided sufficient evidence to support the contention that the grant of the exploration licence would affect native title rights and interests.

The court found that the objector had failed to comply with specific directions, including providing a detailed affidavit and specific maps to support the objection. The court determined that the objector's conduct was unreasonable and vexatious, as they had not followed the directions given. As a result, the objection application was dismissed. The court held that the objector's failure to comply with the directions was a significant factor in the decision, outweighing any potential impact on native title rights and interests.

The court ordered that the objection application be dismissed, and the objection was not proceeded with further. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to court directions in native title matters and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The court's decision underscored the need for objectors to provide detailed and accurate information to support their claims, and the importance of following the procedural requirements set out by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established