Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/La Mancha Resources Australia Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/La Mancha Resources Australia Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 192 (3 November 2011)

Application Nos: WO11/322, WO11/323, WO11/324, WO11/325
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-

La Mancha Resources Australia Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 31 October 2011
Date of reasons: 3 November 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – 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:  Ms Grace Tan, Central Tenement Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 9 March 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P16/2703, P16/2704, P16/2705 and P16/2706 to La Mancha Resources Australia Pty Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 4 March 2011, 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 P16/2703 (WO11/322), P16/2704 (WO11/323), P16/2705 (WO11/324) and P16/2706 (WO11/325).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 7 April 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 31 October 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]. The native title party has failed to comply by the due date.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO11/322, WO11/323, WO11/324 and WO11/325 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
3 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others, acting on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/La Mancha Resources Australia Pty Ltd, was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the central dispute revolved around the proposed grant of prospecting licences over land claimed by the applicants as native title. The applicants contested the grant on the grounds that it would infringe upon their native title rights. The court was required to address whether the objection applications adhered to the procedural requirements set forth in the Native Title Act 1993, particularly focusing on the compliance with directions issued by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements under the Native Title Act 1993, which included adhering to the directions issued by the court. The applicants had been directed to provide detailed information and evidence to substantiate their objections, but they failed to meet these obligations. The court needed to determine the consequences of this non-compliance and whether it warranted the dismissal of the objection applications under the springing order that had been included in the directions.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the applicants had been given explicit directions to provide detailed information to support their objections. Despite these clear instructions, the applicants failed to comply with the directions, thereby breaching the procedural requirements. The court found that the non-compliance was significant and deliberate, as the applicants had been provided with ample opportunity to rectify their shortcomings. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the objection applications in accordance with the springing order included in the directions. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to court directions and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of native title objections.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection applications brought by the applicants. This outcome was a direct result of the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions, as outlined in the Native Title Act 1993. The dismissal of the objection applications meant that the proposed grant of prospecting licences over the contested land could proceed, subject to other legal requirements and considerations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established