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, [2011] NNTTA 123 (30 June 2011)

Application No: WO10/1708, WO10/1709, WO10/1710
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 APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 27 June 2011
Date of reasons: 30 June 2011

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 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:  Ms Nerida O’Brien, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 3 November 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P24/4499, P24/4500, P24/4501 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 22 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 in relation to P24/4499 (WO10/1708), P24/4500 (WO10/1709) and P24/4501 (WO10/1710).

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 27 June 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 applications WO10/1708, WO10/1709 and WO10/1710 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
30 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marianne Velickovic and Others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brendon Chevely Deshon, the applicants sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence over land subject to native title. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicants' objection application under the Native Title Act 1993 should proceed through the expedited procedure. The applicants argued that the proposed prospecting licence threatened their native title rights and interests and requested that the court expedite the hearing of their objection application.

The central legal issue was whether the applicants had complied with specific directions issued by the court regarding their objection application. The court had previously directed the applicants to take certain steps to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that the proposed prospecting licence would adversely affect their native title rights and interests. The applicants' failure to comply with these directions raised questions about whether the court should grant the expedited procedure or dismiss the objection application.

The court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions it had issued. Despite being given an opportunity to comply, the applicants had failed to provide the necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under section 24DA(4) of the Native Title Act 1993 and issued a springing order, dismissing the objection application if the applicants did not comply with the directions by a specified date. As the applicants did not comply, the court dismissed the objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of native title objections.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established