Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Frederick Charles Saunders, Jan Karen Saggers, Lyndon Scott Mahoney, Thomas James Giri

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Frederick Charles Saunders, Jan Karen Saggers, Lyndon Scott Mahoney, Thomas James Giri, [2011] NNTTA 143 (27 July 2011)

Application No: WO11/301
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-

Frederick Charles Saunders, Jan Karen Saggers, Lyndon Scott Mahoney, Thomas James Giri (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
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 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:  Ms Elizabeth Dobaj, Mr Lyndon Scott Mahoney

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

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 licence P27/2080 to Frederick Charles Saunders, Jan Karen Saggers, Lyndon Scott Mahoney and Thomas James Giri (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant 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 an expedited procedure objection application 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 application WO11/301 is 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 involved the native title holders, Marianne Velickovic and others, who sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence by the State of Western Australia. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants challenged the decision of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum to approve the prospecting licence. The applicants argued that the decision was not in accordance with the Native Title Act 1993 and that the proposed grant would affect their native title rights and interests.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally valid, whether the applicants' objection was properly considered, and whether the Minister's decision to approve the prospecting licence was in accordance with the requirements of the Native Title Act. The court also had to consider whether the applicants had complied with the directions given by the court in relation to their objection application.

The court found that the Minister's decision to approve the prospecting licence was legally valid and that the applicants' objection was properly considered. However, the court also found that the applicants had failed to comply with the directions given by the court in relation to their objection application. As a result, the court made a springing order dismissing the objection application in the event of non-compliance. The court ultimately dismissed the objection application, finding that the applicants had not demonstrated that the proposed grant of the prospecting licence would affect their native title rights and interests.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by the parties and the applicable law. The court found that the Minister had properly considered the applicants' objection and that the decision to approve the prospecting licence was in accordance with the requirements of the Native Title Act. The court also found that the applicants had failed to comply with the directions given by the court, which resulted in the dismissal of their objection application. The court's decision was final and binding on the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established