Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/David Neill Marsh

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/David Neill Marsh, [2012] NNTTA 46 (3 May 2012)

Applications No:                WO11/1327 & WO11/1328
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-

David Neill Marsh(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
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 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
Representatives:
Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Grantee party:                   Mr David Neill Marsh

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

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 licences P16/2743 and P16/2744 to David Neill Marsh (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 15 November 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – Native Title Claim No WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (the native title party) lodged expedited procedure objection applications with the Tribunal in relation to P16/2743 (WO11/1327) and P16/2744 (WO11/1328).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 14 December 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 30 April 2012. The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications 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 WO11/1327, and WO11/1328 are 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 Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji/Western Australia, opposing the proposed grant of prospecting licences. The matter was brought before the Court to determine the legality of the proposed grant under the native title framework. The applicants sought to prevent the grant of the prospecting licences, arguing that it would infringe upon their native title rights. The Federal Court was tasked with resolving the dispute and determining whether the applicants' objections to the grant of prospecting licences should proceed under an expedited procedure.

The central legal issues the Court had to address were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set forth by the Court and whether the failure to comply with these directions warranted the dismissal of their objection applications. The applicants had to demonstrate compliance with the Court's directions, particularly regarding the provision of information and evidence to support their objections. The Court also had to consider whether the failure to comply with these directions justified the dismissal of the objection applications and whether a springing order, dismissing the objections if the applicants did not comply, was appropriate.

In its decision, the Federal Court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions provided by the Court. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for the applicants to provide the necessary information and evidence to substantiate their objections. As a result of this non-compliance, the Court dismissed the applicants' objection applications. Additionally, the Court confirmed the appropriateness of a springing order in this context, which would automatically dismiss the objections if the applicants failed to comply with future directions. Consequently, the Court's decision effectively halted the applicants' efforts to prevent the grant of the prospecting licences.

The Federal Court's final orders were that the objection applications were dismissed, and a springing order was issued to dismiss the objections if the applicants failed to comply with future directions. This decision underscored the Court's commitment to enforcing procedural requirements and ensuring that parties abide by the Court's directions in native title matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established