Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Carrick Gold Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Carrick Gold Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 127 (4 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1703
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-

Carrick Gold Ltd (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: 4 July 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:  Mr Dennis Hawtin, Giralia Resources 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 licence P27/2058 to Carrick Gold Ltd (‘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 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 application WO10/1703 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
4 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia against Carrick Gold Ltd revolved around a dispute concerning native title rights in relation to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with addressing the objection raised by the native title claimants against the grant of the licence, which was sought to be processed under an expedited procedure. The claimants argued that the proposed activities would affect their native title rights, necessitating a thorough examination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the objection application raised by the native title claimants should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with specific procedural directions issued by the court. The court had to determine if the claimants' non-compliance with these directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application under the terms of a springing order, which stipulated that the application would be dismissed if the claimants did not comply within a specified timeframe.

In resolving the matter, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural steps and the directives issued. It found that the claimants had not adhered to the directions provided, leading to their non-compliance. Consequently, the court ruled that the objection application was to be dismissed in accordance with the springing order. The court's decision was grounded on the necessity to uphold procedural integrity and ensure that parties abide by court-imposed directives to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes. The court emphasised that non-compliance with procedural obligations could result in significant consequences, including the dismissal of applications, thereby underscoring the importance of adherence to judicial directives.

The court's final orders dismissed the objection application on the grounds of non-compliance, effectively allowing the proposed grant of the prospecting licence to proceed. This decision highlighted the court's commitment to maintaining procedural fairness and efficiency in the handling of native title disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established