Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Abeh Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Abeh Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 212 (16 December 2011)

Application No: WO11/492
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji (WC98/27) (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Abeh Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 12 December 2011
Date of reasons: 16 December 2011

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 event of non-compliance – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 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
Representative of the
native title party:               Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Representative of the
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Max Strindberg

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 20 April 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/1292 to Abeh Pty Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 15 April 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – 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

The Tribunal made directions on 9 May 2011, 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 12 December 2011. 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 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 WO11/492 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Abeh Pty Ltd, who sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title lands. The court was asked to consider whether the objectors had complied with the procedural requirements for objecting to the grant of the exploration licence. The Federal Court was required to decide whether the objectors had fulfilled the necessary steps to object to the grant of the exploration licence under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the objectors had complied with the directions issued by the court in relation to the objection application.

The court found that the objectors had not complied with the directions, leading to the dismissal of their objection application. The objectors had failed to meet the procedural requirements set out in the Act, which necessitated their objection application be dismissed. The court noted that the objectors had not provided the required information or documentation in a timely manner, which had hindered the court's ability to properly assess their objection. The court also considered the impact of the objectors' non-compliance on the proposed exploration activities and the potential for delaying the project unnecessarily. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and made a springing order that would come into effect if the objectors did not comply with the directions within a specified timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established