Leonne Velickovic & Others on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Trevor Edwards O’Dea and William George O’Donnell

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Leonne Velickovic & Others on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Trevor Edwards O’Dea and William George O’Donnell, [2008] NNTTA 16 (6 February 2008)

Application No: WO07/407

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application

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

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Trevor Edward O’Dea and William George O’Donnell (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of decision:                29 January 2008
Date of reasons:                6 February 2008

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with Directions – springing order dismissing expedited procedure objection application in event of non-compliance – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(b)

Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Frederick Saunders, NNTT WO05/564, [2006] NNTTA 76 (15 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner
Representatives of the Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

native title party: Ms Richardene Dangor, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representatives of the Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Industry and Resources

Government party: Ms Jan Mason, Department of Industry and Resources

Representatives of the Mr Trevor Edward O’Dea

grantee party: Mr William George O’Donnell

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 6 June 2007, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P25/1923 to Trevor Edward O’Dea and William George O’Donnell (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 6 June 2007, Leonne Velickovic & Others on behalf of the Widji People – Native Title Claim No. WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

Relevant Facts

On 26 June 2007 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 the 29 January 2008. The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there is non-compliance by close of business on the due date. In making the decision to impose the springing order I adopted the Tribunal’s findings in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Frederick Saunders, NNTT WO05/564, [2006] NNTTA 76 (15 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner at [15] – [21]. The native title party has failed to comply by the due date.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO07/407 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
6 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Widji People, represented by Leonne Velickovic and others, who brought an objection against the grant of a prospecting licence to Trevor Edwards O'Dea and William George O'Donnell over land claimed under native title. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this dispute. The key legal issues revolved around the obligations of the parties under the Native Title Act 1993 and the court's ability to enforce compliance with its directions in the context of an expedited procedure objection application.

The court considered whether the Widji People had complied with the procedural requirements and directions issued by the Court in the objection application process. The Widji People had been directed to file specific documents within a specified time frame. However, they failed to comply with these directions, which led to the court considering the implications of non-compliance as outlined in the springing order. The court had to determine whether the failure to comply with the directions warranted the dismissal of the objection application.

The Federal Court found that the Widji People had not complied with the directions issued by the Court. Consequently, the springing order, which provided for the dismissal of the objection application in the event of non-compliance, was activated. The court held that the failure to adhere to the procedural requirements and directions meant that the objection application could not proceed. The court dismissed the objection application, emphasising the importance of compliance with court directions in such proceedings.

The court's final orders reflected its decision to dismiss the objection application due to the non-compliance with the directions. This outcome underscored the critical nature of adherence to procedural requirements and court directives in native title objection applications under the expedited procedure. The dismissal of the objection application was a direct consequence of the failure to comply with the court's orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established