Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Colin Aubery House & Philip John Wale

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Colin Aubery House & Philip John Wale, [2012] NNTTA 62 (12 June 2012)

Application No:                  WO12/48
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-

Colin Aubery House & Philip John Wale(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 8 June 2012
Date of reasons: 12 June 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order – expedited procedure objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103
Representatives:
Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Government party:            Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Grantee party:                   Mr Colin Aubery House & Mr Philip John Wale

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 11 January 2012, 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 P15/5660 to Colin Aubery House & Philip John Wale (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 23 January 2012, 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 P15/5660.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made Directions on 27 February 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 8 June 2012.
The Directions imposed a springing order which had the effect of immediately dismissing the objection application pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there was non-compliance by the due date.
The principles governing the making of “springing” or “guillotine” Directions were explained in Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103. I adopt those principles for the purpose of this decision.

The Springing Direction, having required the native title party to provide contentions by close of business on 8 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO12/48 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court involved the applicants, Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji/Western Australia/Colin Aubery House and Philip John Wale, who sought to object to the grant of a prospecting licence in Western Australia under the Native Title Act 1993. The applicants argued that the proposed prospecting licence would impact their native title rights and interests. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants had properly complied with the procedural requirements of the Native Title Act and the court’s own procedural directions in lodging their objection.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Native Title Act and the court’s directions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicants' failure to comply with certain procedural requirements warranted the dismissal of their expedited procedure objection application. The court also had to consider whether the applicants' non-compliance with procedural directions should result in a springing order being activated, which would have significant consequences for the applicants' case.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the applicants had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements and the court's directions. Despite the applicants' arguments, the court found that their failure to comply with the procedural directions was significant and warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The court emphasised the importance of following procedural requirements in such matters and noted that the applicants' non-compliance with the directions was a critical factor in its decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application and did not activate the springing order.

The court's final order was that the expedited procedure objection application by the applicants was dismissed. The court found that the applicants had not met the necessary procedural standards, and therefore, their objection to the proposed grant of the prospecting licence was not upheld. The dismissal of the objection application meant that the prospecting licence could proceed as planned, subject to any other legal requirements or considerations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established