Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brian James Mills, Raymond John Francis, Wieslaw Wozniak

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Brian James Mills, Raymond John Francis, Wieslaw Wozniak, [2011] NNTTA 120 (29 June 2011)

Application No: WO10/1651
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-

Brian James Mills, Raymond John Francis, Wieslaw Wozniak (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 13 June 2011
Date of reasons: 29 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:           Ms Ros Dawson, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representatives of the       Mr Brian James Mills, Mr Raymond John Francis and
grantee party:  Mr Wieslaw Wozniak

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 20 October 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P15/5553 to Brian James Mills, Raymond John Francis, Wieslaw Wozniak (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant 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.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 25 January 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 13 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 application WO10/1651 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
29 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Marianne Velickovic and others, who are representatives of the Widji/Western Australia/Brian James Mills, Raymond John Francis, and Wieslaw Wozniak native title group. They sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence, which they believed would impact their native title rights. The objection was made under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act 1993. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding the matter.

The court was required to determine whether the objectors had complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the legislation, particularly concerning the service of the objection application on the relevant parties and the filing of an affidavit in support of the application. The court also needed to assess the implications of the objectors' non-compliance with a specific direction regarding the service of the application on the respondent.

In its judgment, the court found that the objectors had not complied with the procedural requirements, as they failed to serve the objection application on the respondent and did not file the necessary affidavit. The court issued a springing order, stating that if the objectors did not rectify their non-compliance within a specified timeframe, their objection application would be dismissed. The objectors did not comply with the order, leading to the dismissal of their objection application. The court's decision was based on the objectors' failure to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Native Title Act 1993.

The court dismissed the objection application, thereby allowing the proposed grant of the prospecting licence to proceed. The dismissal was a direct consequence of the objectors' non-compliance with the court's direction and the procedural requirements of the Native Title Act 1993. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in matters concerning native title and the consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established