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 140 (21 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1716
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: 11 July 2011
Date of reasons: 21 July 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, Abeh Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 17 November 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/1213 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 17 November 2010, 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 1 February 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 11 July 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 WO10/1716 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
21 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involved Widji/Western Australia/Abeh Pty Ltd, represented by Marianne Velickovic and others, challenging a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The applicants sought an expedited procedure objection against the grant of the licence on the basis of potential impacts on their native title rights. The primary dispute centred on whether the applicants' objection was valid and if the proposed exploration activities would infringe on their native title rights.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants had adequately demonstrated that the proposed exploration activities would infringe upon their native title rights, thereby warranting the dismissal of the objection application. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicants complied with procedural directions provided by the Court, including the requirement to submit certain documentation within a specified timeframe.

In its decision, the Court found that the applicants had failed to comply with certain procedural directions, specifically not submitting the required documentation in a timely manner. The Court noted that despite the applicants' arguments regarding the potential impacts on their native title rights, their non-compliance with the Court's directions was significant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the objection application, with a springing order that if the applicants did not comply with the directions in the future, the objection application would be dismissed outright. Given the non-compliance, the objection application was dismissed, and the Court made orders for costs against the applicants.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving native title and expedited procedures. The Court's emphasis on compliance with its directions highlights the necessity for parties to strictly follow procedural mandates to effectively pursue their legal claims.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established