Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Heron Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Heron Resources Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 128 (4 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1706
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-

Heron Resources Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 27 June 2011
Date of reasons: 4 July 2011

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 David von Perger, Heron Resources Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 3 November 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P24/4531 to Heron Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant 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 an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 1 February 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 27 June 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 close of business on 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 WO10/1706 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
4 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji people against Western Australia and Heron Resources Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with determining an objection to an expedited procedure application related to a proposed prospecting licence. The Widji people, represented by Velickovic, sought to object to the grant of a prospecting licence over their native title lands, arguing that the application did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Native Title Act 1993. The dispute centred on whether the respondents had adequately addressed previous directions from the court, which were aimed at resolving issues related to the application's compliance.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Native Title Act, particularly the obligations placed upon the parties in an expedited procedure objection application. The court had to consider whether the respondents had complied with the directions given and whether the failure to do so warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court also had to determine the appropriate course of action in the event that the respondents did not comply with the directions, including the potential imposition of a springing order dismissing the objection application.

In its decision, the court held that the respondents had not complied with the directions issued. The court found that the respondents had failed to provide the necessary information and documentation to substantiate their objection application. Given this non-compliance, the court determined that the objection application should be dismissed if the respondents did not rectify their failure within a specified timeframe. The court issued a springing order that would become effective if the respondents did not comply with the directions by the given date, resulting in the dismissal of the objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title matters and the consequences of failing to do so.

The court's final orders included a dismissal of the objection application if the respondents did not comply with the directions by the specified date, effectively preventing the objection from proceeding. The court also mandated that the respondents provide the required information and documentation to support their objection application within the set timeframe. This decision underscored the necessity for parties involved in native title matters to strictly adhere to procedural obligations and the potential repercussions of non-compliance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established