Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Burgundy Triangle Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Burgundy Triangle Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 144 (27 July 2011)

Application Nos: WO11/303, WO11/304
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-

Burgundy Triangle Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 18 July 2011
Date of reasons: 27 July 2011

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 Diya Sequeira, Tenement Administration Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 23 February 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P24/4561 and P24/4563 to Burgundy Triangle Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 1 March 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.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 14 April 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 18 July 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 WO11/303 and WO11/304 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
27 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Burgundy Triangle Pty Ltd, involved a dispute over the proposed grant of prospecting licences in relation to native title claims. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine the objections raised against the grant of these licences under the Native Title Act 1993. The applicants sought to prevent the grant of prospecting licences over their native title lands, arguing that the process did not comply with the requirements of the Act and their native title rights were at risk of being extinguished without adequate consultation and negotiation.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements of the Act in lodging their objections, and whether the objections were valid in substance. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the applicants had followed the directions given by the Court in a previous proceeding and whether their objections were based on valid grounds under the Act. The respondents, who were the proponents of the prospecting licences, argued that the applicants had failed to comply with the Court's directions and that their objections were invalid because they did not meet the statutory criteria.

In its decision, the Court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions given in the earlier proceeding, which required them to provide certain information and documents to support their objections. The Court held that this failure to comply with the directions was a significant procedural default and amounted to a breach of the Court's orders. Additionally, the Court concluded that the applicants' objections did not meet the substantive requirements of the Act, as they did not demonstrate that the grant of the prospecting licences would result in the extinguishment of native title rights without adequate consultation and negotiation. As a result, the Court dismissed the applicants' objections and upheld the proposed grant of prospecting licences. The Court also made a springing order, which provided that if the applicants did not comply with the directions to provide the required information and documents within a specified timeframe, their objections would be dismissed automatically.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established