Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/KB Gold Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/KB Gold Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 142 (25 July 2011)

Application Nos: WO10/793, WO10/794
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-

KB Gold Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 18 July 2011
Date of reasons: 25 July 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – 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:  Mr Peter d’Auvergne, Petra Minerals

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 16 June 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P26/3619 and P26/3620 to KB Gold Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 14 June 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.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 20 May 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 18 July 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 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 applications WO10/793 and WO10/794 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
25 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Marianne Velickovic and others, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/KB Gold Pty Ltd, revolved around objections to the proposed grant of prospecting licences over land claimed as native title. The applicants sought to object to the grants under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act 1993. The primary concern was whether the applicants' objections could proceed despite their failure to comply with specific directions given by the Court. The case required the court to determine the appropriate legal consequences of the applicants' non-compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act. The court had to consider whether the failure of the applicants to adhere to the directions issued by the Court warranted the dismissal of their objections. Furthermore, the court examined whether the imposition of a springing order, which would automatically dismiss the objections if the applicants did not comply with certain conditions, was permissible under the Act. The court's decision hinged on whether such an order would unduly restrict the applicants' procedural rights or whether it was a proportionate response to their non-compliance.

The court found that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions significantly undermined the integrity of the judicial process. It concluded that the imposition of a springing order was an appropriate and proportionate response to ensure that the expedited procedure was not rendered ineffective by procedural non-compliance. The court held that the applicants' objections were dismissed due to their failure to comply with the specific directions. This decision was based on the principle that adherence to procedural requirements is essential for the expeditious and fair resolution of native title matters. The dismissal of the objections was intended to uphold the procedural integrity of the court's processes and to ensure that all parties adhere to the rules governing the expedited procedure.

The final orders of the court were that the objections raised by the applicants were dismissed. This decision was contingent upon the applicants' continued non-compliance with the directions issued by the Court. The court's dismissal of the objections was intended to enforce procedural compliance and to ensure the efficiency of the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established