Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 /Western Australia/Angus William Lacey

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 /Western Australia/Angus William Lacey [2013] NNTTA 176 (13 December 2013)

Application No: WO2013/0084

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 (WC2006/006) (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Angus William Lacey (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            9 December 2013
Date of reasons:              13 December 2013

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 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: Mr Andrew Burke, Goldfields Land and Sea Council

Representative of the

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

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Stephen Argus

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 3 October 2012, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P37/8248 to Angus William Lacey (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 30 January 2013, PT (name withheld for cultural reasons) & Ors on behalf of Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 WC2002/006 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal in relation to P37/8248 (WO2013/0084).

Relevant facts

At the status conference held on 10 July 2013, the native title party representative advised that the signed agreement had been received from the grantee party and they were awaiting signatures from the Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 applicants.
No further progress was made toward the resolution of the objection and on 8 November 2013 the Tribunal made directions requiring the native title party to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there is non-compliance by the native title party. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavit on or before 9 December 2013. In imposing the springing order I considered and adopted Deputy President Sosso’s reasons in Dixon v Northern Territory of Australia [2002] NNTTA 48; (2002) 169 FLR 103, (at [24]-[25]).
Neither contentions nor evidence have been received from the native title party by the due date 9 December 2013 and no explanation has been 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 WO2013/0084.

Decision

As the native title party has failed to comply with Directions made by the Tribunal on 8 November 2013, the objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in accordance with the terms of the Directions.

Helen Shurven
Member
13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mantjintjarra Ngalia #2 versus Western Australia and Angus William Lacey was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Mantjintjarra Ngalia, a group of native title claimants, sought to object to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence over their native title area, under the Native Title Act 1993. The objection was lodged under the expedited procedure for future act determinations. The defendants were the State of Western Australia and Angus William Lacey, the proposed licence holder.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Mantjintjarra Ngalia had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Native Title Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the claimants had adhered to the directions issued by the court in relation to the evidence they were required to provide to substantiate their objection. The court also had to consider whether the claimants had complied with other procedural obligations, including the provision of expert evidence and the filing of affidavits.

The Federal Court found that the Mantjintjarra Ngalia had failed to comply with the directions issued by the court. The claimants had not provided the required evidence and affidavits, and had also failed to engage an expert to provide the necessary evidence. The court held that the claimants' failure to comply with the directions was a serious procedural breach, which undermined the integrity of the expedited procedure. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and made a springing order that the objection application would be dismissed if the claimants did not comply with the directions within a specified time frame. When the claimants failed to comply with the directions, the objection application was dismissed.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of procedural compliance in native title determinations. The court emphasised that the expedited procedure for future act determinations is designed to provide a quick and efficient resolution of disputes, but that this can only be achieved if the parties comply with the procedural requirements. The court also made it clear that it will not tolerate any attempts to circumvent or delay the procedural requirements, and that failure to comply with the directions will result in the dismissal of the objection application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established