Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Hayes Mining Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Hayes Mining Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 136 (18 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1684, WO10/1685, WO10/1686, WO10/1687
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Hayes Mining Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 13 July 2011
Date of reasons: 18 July 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order dismissing expedited procedure objection applications in event of non-compliance – objection applications 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 Tracy Browning, Getz Goldfields Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 20 October 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P24/4379, P24/4380, P24/4381, P24/4382 to Hayes Mining Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 22 November 2010, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – Native Title Claim No WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (‘the native title party’) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in relation to P24/4379 (WO10/1684), P24/4380 (WO10/1685), P24/4381 (WO10/1686), P24/4382 (WO10/1687).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 14 June 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 13 July 2011. The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications 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]. In each case the native title party has failed to comply by the due date.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO10/1684, WO10/1685, WO10/1686, WO10/1687 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
18 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Marianne Velickovic, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia, and others, objected to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence over land claimed as native title. The applicants sought to have the objections heard under the expedited procedure provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act and whether the objections were valid.

The central legal issues revolved around the compliance with the procedural directions issued by the court and the validity of the objections raised by the applicants. The court needed to assess whether the applicants had adequately followed the procedural requirements and whether the objections were justified in light of the proposed grant of the prospecting licence. The applicants' compliance with the court's directions was critical, as non-compliance would lead to the dismissal of the objection applications.

The court found that the applicants had failed to comply with the procedural directions issued in previous hearings. As a result, the court activated a springing order, dismissing the objection applications if the applicants did not comply with the directions. Given the non-compliance, the court dismissed the objection applications. The court held that the objections were not valid due to the procedural failures and the lack of compliance with the directions. The court concluded that the applicants had not met the necessary procedural standards to maintain their objection applications.

The final orders of the court were that the objection applications were dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with the procedural directions. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title matters and the consequences of non-compliance. The dismissal of the objections meant that the proposed grant of the prospecting licence could proceed without the objections raised by the applicants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established