Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Giles Rodney Dale

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Giles Rodney Dale, [2011] NNTTA 210 (15 December 2011)

Application No: WO11/491
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 (WC98/27) (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Giles Rodney Dale (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 12 December 2011
Date of reasons: 15 December 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration 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 Dennis Jacobs, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Ms Diya Sequeira, Tenement Administration Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 20 April 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/1293 to Giles Rodney Dale (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 15 April 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 9 May 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 12 December 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 WO11/491 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
15 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicants, Marianne Velickovic and others, who brought an application on behalf of the Widji people, contesting a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The respondents were Western Australia and Giles Rodney Dale. The applicants argued that the proposed grant of the exploration licence constituted a future act that would impair their native title rights. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the applicants had established a reasonable likelihood of success in their claim that the proposed grant would impair their native title rights, and whether the applicants had complied with the directions issued by the court in relation to the expedited procedure. Additionally, the court had to determine if a springing order should be made to dismiss the objection application if the applicants failed to comply with the directions.

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, as there was a significant possibility that the proposed exploration activities would impair their native title rights. However, the applicants had not complied with the directions regarding the expedited procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application and made a springing order that would take effect if the applicants did not comply with the directions within a specified timeframe. As the applicants did not comply, the objection application was ultimately dismissed.

No further orders were made in the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established