Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brendon Chevely Deshon

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brendon Chevely Deshon, [2012] NNTTA 28 (19 March 2012)

Application Nos: WO11/1154, WO11/1155, WO11/1156, WO11/1157
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 (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Brendon Chevely Deshon (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 5 March 2012
Date of reasons: 19 March 2012

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:  Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 21 September 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P27/2099, P27/2100, P27/2101 and P27/2102 to Brendon Chevely Deshon (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 20 September 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – Native Title Claim No WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (the native title party) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in relation to P27/2099 (WO11/1154), P27/2100 (WO11/1155), P27/2101 (WO11/1156) and P27/2102 (WO11/1157).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 30 January 2012 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 5 March 2012. 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 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 applications WO11/1154, WO11/1155, WO11/1156 and WO11/1157 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
19 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brendon Chevely Deshon, who sought to object to the proposed grant of prospecting licences over land claimed under native title. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants argued that the proposed mining activities would affect their native title rights and interests. The applicants initiated proceedings under the Native Title Act 1993, objecting to the grant of prospecting licences over the contested area. They sought an expedited procedure for their objection applications, which was granted by the Court. However, the applicants failed to comply with several directions made by the Court, leading to the dismissal of their objection applications.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants' failure to comply with the Court's directions justified the dismissal of their objection applications. The Court had to consider whether the applicants' non-compliance was a sufficient ground to dismiss the objections under the Native Title Act 1993. The applicants argued that their non-compliance was due to misunderstandings and should not result in the dismissal of their objections. However, the Court found that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions was significant and warranted the dismissal of their objections.

The Court determined that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions demonstrated a lack of commitment to the proceedings and undermined the integrity of the judicial process. The Court held that the applicants' non-compliance was a valid ground for dismissing their objection applications, as it impeded the efficient administration of justice. The Court also noted that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their non-compliance, further justifying the dismissal of their objections. Consequently, the Court issued a springing order dismissing the objection applications if the applicants did not comply with the directions, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of their objections.

The Court's final orders included dismissing the applicants' objection applications due to their failure to comply with the Court's directions. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the consequences of non-compliance in native title proceedings. The dismissal of the objection applications meant that the proposed grant of prospecting licences over the contested area was not subject to the applicants' objections, allowing the mining activities to proceed as planned.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established