Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brett Anthony Scott

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brett Anthony Scott, [2012] NNTTA 45 (3 May 2012)

Application No:                 WO11/1323
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji     (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia   (government party)
-and-

Brett Anthony Scott(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 30 April 2012
Date of reasons: 3 May 2012

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
Representatives:
Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Grantee party:                   Mr Brett Scott

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 16 November 2011, the State of Western Australia (the government party) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P24/4600 to Brett Anthony Scott (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 15 November 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji - Native Title Claim No WC98/27 (the native title party), registered from 15 June 1998 lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to P24/4600.

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 30 April 2012. 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 WO11/1323 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji/Western Australia/Brett Anthony Scott centred around a dispute concerning native title and a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. The applicants sought to object to the grant of the prospecting licence, arguing that it would affect their native title rights. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicants' objection to the grant of the prospecting licence should proceed under an expedited procedure.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had complied with the directions issued by the court. The court had previously directed the applicants to file an amended objection application, but they failed to do so. The applicants argued that the requirement to file an amended objection application was not a condition precedent to the objection application proceeding under the expedited procedure. The court had to determine the appropriate legal consequence of the applicants' failure to comply with the directions.

In its decision, the court held that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions was a significant procedural misstep. The court noted that it had previously issued a springing order, which would dismiss the objection application if the applicants did not comply with the directions. The court found that the applicants had not met the condition precedent of filing an amended objection application. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in such matters.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the objection application due to the applicants' non-compliance with the directions. The court's decision underscored the necessity for parties to strictly follow procedural directives to ensure that their legal processes are properly conducted and respected.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established