Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Barra Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Barra Resources Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 200 (17 November 2011)

Application Nos: WO11/710, WO11/711
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji (WC98/27) (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Barra Resources Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 7 November 2011
Date of reasons: 17 November 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – springing order dismissing expedited procedure objection applications in event of non-compliance – objection applications 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 Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 15 June 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P15/5632 and P15/5633 to Barra Resources Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 10 June 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 applications to the Tribunal.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 28 July 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 7 November 2011. 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 on or before 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 in each case failed to comply by the due date.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO11/710 and WO11/711 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
17 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia involved Marianne Velickovic and others representing the Widji people, contesting a proposed grant of prospecting licences by Barra Resources Ltd over their native title lands. The applicants sought to object to the grant of these prospecting licences under an expedited procedure, as outlined in the Native Title Act 1993. The court was tasked with deciding whether the applicants' objections could proceed under this expedited process, despite their failure to adhere to certain procedural directions provided by the court.

The central legal issue was whether the applicants' objections could proceed under the expedited procedure, given their non-compliance with specific procedural directions. The court had to balance the need for procedural fairness against the objectives of the expedited procedure, which aims to provide a quicker resolution to disputes concerning future acts that might affect native title rights. The court also had to consider the implications of a springing order, which would dismiss the objection applications if the applicants did not comply with further directions.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural directions in maintaining the integrity of the legal process. It held that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions demonstrated a lack of commitment to the procedural requirements necessary for the expedited procedure to function effectively. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection applications, noting that the springing order would come into effect if the applicants did not comply with further directions. This decision underscored the court's commitment to procedural fairness and the importance of following the rules of the court.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the objection applications and issuing a warning that if the applicants did not comply with further directions, the objection applications would be dismissed as a matter of law. This decision highlights the court's stance on the importance of procedural compliance in native title matters and sets a precedent for future cases involving expedited procedures and objections to future acts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established