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 114 (27 June 2011)

Application No: WO10/1727
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 (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: 9 May 2011
Date of reasons: 27 June 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:           Ms Ros Dawson, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Brendon Chevely Deshon

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 15 December 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/1235 to Brendon Chevely Deshon (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 20 December 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 22 March 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 9 May 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 WO10/1727 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
27 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an expedited procedure objection application against the grant of an exploration licence over land claimed as native title. The applicants were Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji people of Western Australia, with Brendon Chevely Deshon being one of the named applicants. The respondents were the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia, along with others. The applicants sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title land, under the Native Title Act 1993.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' failure to comply with specific procedural directions issued by the court warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The applicants were required to provide certain information and documents to the respondents by a specified date. However, they did not meet these deadlines. The court had to determine whether this non-compliance justified the dismissal of the objection application and whether a springing order, which would automatically dismiss the application if the applicants did not comply with further directions, was appropriate.

The court found that the applicants' failure to comply with the procedural directions was significant and constituted a breach of the court's orders. The applicants had been given multiple opportunities to comply but did not do so. The court concluded that the applicants' non-compliance warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The court considered that a springing order was an appropriate remedy in this situation, as it would ensure that the applicants had a final opportunity to comply with the directions. If they failed to do so, the objection application would be dismissed. The court issued the springing order, and upon the applicants' continued non-compliance, dismissed the objection application.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection application on the basis of the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving native title and the expedited procedure. The dismissal of the objection application meant that the proposed grant of the exploration licence could proceed, subject to other legal requirements and considerations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established