Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Hard Rock Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Hard Rock Resources Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 61 (12 June 2012)

Application No:                  WO12/41
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-

Hard Rock Resources Pty Ltd(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 8 June 2012
Date of reasons: 12 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:                   Ms Claire Hornsby, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 11 January 2012, 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 P26/3859 to Hard Rock Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 23 January 2012, 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 P26/3859 (WO12/41).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made Directions on 27 February 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 8 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 8 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO12/41 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Hard Rock Resources Pty Ltd involved an objection to an expedited procedure for the grant of a prospecting licence over land claimed by the Widji people. The dispute centred around the intersection of native title rights and the Commonwealth's power to grant prospecting licences. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the objection should be dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with specific directions.

The central legal issue was whether the applicants' non-compliance with the Court's directions warranted dismissal of their objection. The applicants argued that they had made genuine efforts to comply, but the Court needed to assess the reasonableness of these efforts. Additionally, the Court considered whether the applicants had standing to object and whether the proposed licence would constitute a future act that might affect native title rights.

The Court held that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions was not due to any lack of good faith or reasonable effort, but rather a misunderstanding of the requirements. However, the Court determined that the dismissal of the objection was warranted because the applicants' failure to comply with the directions meant they could not effectively participate in the proceedings. The Court further found that the proposed grant of the prospecting licence would not constitute a future act affecting native title rights, given the applicants' inability to present their case adequately. Consequently, the objection was dismissed.

The Court's decision concluded that the objection application was dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with the Court's directions, despite their good faith efforts. This outcome underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings and highlighted the Court's authority to enforce these requirements to ensure the fairness and effectiveness of the process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established