Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Janet Mears

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Janet Mears, [2012] NNTTA 36 (19 April 2012)

Application No:                 WO11/1261
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-

Janet Mears(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:  Ms Janet Mears

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 P15/5643 to Janet Mears (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 P15/5643.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 20 December 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 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 WO11/1261 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 a dispute over a proposed grant of a prospecting licence in Western Australia, with the applicants being Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia, and the respondent being Janet Mears. The applicants sought to object to the proposed grant under the expedited procedure, arguing that it would adversely affect their native title rights. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements of the Native Title Act 1993, particularly in relation to the lodgement of documents and the provision of information as directed by the court. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate remedy in the event of non-compliance, considering the potential adverse effects on the applicants' native title rights.

In its decision, the court found that the applicants had not complied with several directions issued by the court, including the timely submission of documents and information. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in such cases, given the potential impact on native title rights. The court considered the implications of non-compliance and ultimately decided to impose a springing order, which would dismiss the objection application if the applicants did not comply with the directions within a specified period. As the applicants failed to comply, the court dismissed the objection application, emphasizing the necessity of procedural adherence in protecting native title rights.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the objection application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established