Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Geofrey Edward Bloomfield

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Geofrey Edward Bloomfield [2012] NNTTA 66 (18 June 2012)

Application No:                  WO11/1212
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-

Geofrey Edward Bloomfield(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 11 June 2012
Date of reasons: 18 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 Geofrey Edward Bloomfield

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 19 October 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 licence P25/2209 to Geofrey Edward Bloomfield (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 22 October 2011, 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 P25/2209 (WO11/1212).
The Tribunal made Directions on 15 November 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 11 June 2012.
The Directions imposed a springing order which had the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications 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 11 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/1212 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia, and Geofrey Edward Bloomfield. The dispute pertained to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence over land that was the subject of native title claims. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought an expedited procedure objection application against the grant of the prospecting licence, arguing that the proposed activity would affect their native title rights.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements for an expedited procedure objection application and whether the applicants had established that the proposed prospecting would affect their native title rights. The court was required to determine if the applicants' failure to comply with the directions constituted a sufficient ground to dismiss the application. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the proposed prospecting on the native title rights and whether there was a sufficient connection between the proposed activity and the native title rights.

The court found that the applicants had failed to comply with the procedural directions, which included providing a detailed affidavit outlining the nature of the proposed prospecting and its impact on the native title rights. The court also held that the applicants had not established that the proposed prospecting would affect their native title rights. The failure to comply with the directions was considered a significant procedural defect. As a result, the court dismissed the expedited procedure objection application. The court further noted that the failure to comply with the procedural requirements was a substantial impediment to the applicants' case, and the dismissal was appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established