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

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Plasia Pty Ltd, [2006] NNTTA 60 (18 May 2006)

Application No: WO05/849

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-

Plasia Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            18 May 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 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 E15/901 (‘the proposed licence’) to Plasia 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 WO05/849).

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 14 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 18 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 WO05/849 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

18 May 2006

The case involved Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People, who brought an objection application against the Western Australia government and Plasia Pty Ltd, regarding a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Widji People, represented by Velickovic, sought to object to the grant of the exploration licence on the grounds that it would affect their native title rights and interests.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Widji People had properly initiated their objection under the Native Title Act 1993 and if the application was lodged within the required timeframe. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there were valid grounds for the objection, particularly concerning the impact of the proposed exploration licence on the native title rights and interests of the Widji People. The court also had to consider whether the Widji People complied with the procedural requirements and directions issued by the court.

The court found that the Widji People's objection application was not properly initiated, as it failed to comply with the necessary procedural steps and directions. The court noted that the objection application was not filed within the requisite timeframe and that the Widji People did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application. The court held that the Widji People did not meet the burden of proof required to successfully object to the grant of the exploration licence.

The court concluded that the Widji People's objection application was dismissed due to their failure to comply with the directions and procedural requirements. The court did not find sufficient grounds to support the objection, and therefore, the objection application was unsuccessful. The proposed grant of the exploration licence was not impeded by the Widji People's objection, and the court did not issue any further orders in relation to the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established