Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Graeme John Stone

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Graeme John Stone, [2012] NNTTA 37 (19 April 2012)

Application No:                  WO11/1262
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-

Graeme John Stone(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:John Sosso, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 16 April 2012
Date of reasons: 19 April 2012

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:  Mr Graeme John Stone

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 2 November 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P16/2739 to Graeme John Stone (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 2 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 an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to P16/2739.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 30 January 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 16 April 2012. 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 WO11/1262 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji people of Western Australia, along with Graeme John Stone, who sought to object to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence by the Commonwealth. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to challenge the grant on the basis that it could affect their native title rights. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants' objection application under the Native Title Act 1993 complied with the procedural requirements and the court's directions. The court also needed to determine the consequences of any non-compliance with these directions.

The court examined whether the applicants had adequately complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Native Title Act 1993 and the court's directions. It was established that the applicants had failed to comply with certain directions, specifically regarding the provision of documents and information essential for the court's consideration of the objection. The court held that the applicants' failure to comply with these directions was a significant procedural default that undermined the integrity of the objection process. Given this non-compliance, the court concluded that the applicants' objection application should be dismissed, with a springing order that would automatically effect the dismissal if the non-compliance persisted.

The court issued a dismissal order for the objection application, contingent upon the applicants' continued non-compliance with the court's directions. This decision was grounded in the necessity to uphold procedural fairness and the importance of adhering to court directions in matters involving native title. The dismissal ensured that the court's processes were not circumvented by procedural neglect, thereby protecting the rights and interests of all parties involved. The court's decision underscored the significance of procedural compliance in native title objection applications and the consequences of failing to meet these obligations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established