Maggie John & Ors on behalf of the Malarngowem People/Western Australia/Glenn Griffin Venn Money

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Maggie John & Ors on behalf of the Malarngowem People/Western Australia/Glenn Griffin Venn Money, [2012] NNTTA 29 (19 March 2012)

Application No: WO11/764

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

-and-

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

Maggie John & Ors on behalf of the Malarngowem People (WC99/46) (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Glenn Griffin Venn Money (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            6 March 2012
Date of reasons:              19 March 2012

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

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103
Representative of the

native title party: Ms Ania Maszkowski, Kimberley Land Council

Representative of the

Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 9 March 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (the Act) of its intention to grant exploration licence E80/4512 to Glenn Griffin Venn Money (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 11 July 2011, Maggie John & Ors on behalf of the Malarngowen People – Native Title Claim No WC99/44, registered from 4 February 2000 (the native title party) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal

Relevant facts

On 26 July 2011, the Tribunal made directions for all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. These directions allowed a four month period from the closing date for objections to allow the parties to negotiate to see if the objection could be resolved by consent. The native title party was to provide its contentions and documentary evidence on or before 7 November 2011. The directions contain a statement that the 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.
At the preliminary conference on 9 August 2011 the grantee party representative advised that their client wished to proceed to inquiry and this matter was adjourned to the listing hearing.
At the listing hearing on 2 February 2012 the native title party representative advised that they had been unable to collect the necessary evidence however a working group meeting was scheduled for late March or early April and the evidence would be collected at that time. On that basis they requested an extension to compliance dates. The grantee party had complied and made application that the matter be dismissed under s 148(b). The Government party supported the extension request however made application that the matter be dismissed under s 148(b) if native title party compliance was not met.

On 6 February 2012, the Tribunal made an amendment to directions requiring native title party compliance on or before 6 March 2012. A springing order was also imposed which automatically dismissed the objection if there was not compliance by the due date (see Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103).
Neither contentions nor evidence were received from the native title party by the due date and no explanation provided for the failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions despite the native title party having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply. The springing order applied has resulted in the dismissal of WO11/764.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/764 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
19 March 2012

In the Federal Court, a group known as the Malarngowem People, represented by Maggie John and others, sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title land by Western Australia and Glenn Griffin Venn Money. The objectors argued that the grant would irreversibly affect their native title rights. The matter was heard under the expedited procedure outlined in section 223 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the objection application should be dismissed due to the objectors' failure to comply with specific procedural directions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the failure to comply with the procedural directions warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court considered the nature of the directions and the consequences of non-compliance, including the potential for irreversible damage to native title rights. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the dismissal of the objection application was appropriate under the circumstances.

The court held that the objectors had failed to comply with the procedural directions, which were essential for the proper conduct of the objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in such sensitive matters. Given the significant consequences of non-compliance, the court found that the dismissal of the objection application was warranted. The court issued a springing order, dismissing the objection application if the objectors did not comply with the directions within the specified timeframe. Ultimately, the objection application was dismissed due to the objectors' failure to comply with the court's directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established