Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Lawson Gold Limited

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Lawson Gold Limited, [2011] NNTTA 147 (28 July 2011)

Application Nos: WO11/297, WO11/298, WO11/299, WO11/300
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-

Lawson Gold Limited (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: 28 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 Kevin Connell, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 23 February 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P27/2075, P27/2076, P27/2077, P27/2078 to Lawson Gold Limited (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 1 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 P27/2075 (WO11/297), P27/2076 (WO11/298), P27/2077 (WO11/299), P27/2078 (WO11/300).

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 15 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 18 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]. The native title party has failed to comply by the due date.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO11/297, WO11/298, WO11/299 and WO11/300 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
28 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Lawson Gold Limited involved a dispute over native title and the proposed grant of prospecting licences. The parties sought to determine the rights and obligations concerning future acts in relation to the land in question. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the respondents' objection applications to the grant of prospecting licences should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with specific directions given by the court.

The court needed to decide whether the respondents' objections could be dismissed outright if they failed to adhere to the directions provided. The respondents had been given clear instructions to provide certain information and documents by a specified deadline, but they did not comply with these directions. The applicants argued that the respondents' failure to comply should result in the dismissal of their objection applications. The court considered the implications of non-compliance with court directions in the context of objection applications under the expedited procedure for future acts in native title matters. It examined whether such non-compliance warranted the dismissal of the objection applications and if a springing order was an appropriate remedy in this situation.

The court found that the respondents' failure to comply with the directions was a serious matter, particularly given the importance of the information required for the court to make an informed decision. It held that the non-compliance justified the dismissal of the objection applications. Consequently, the court issued a springing order that would dismiss the respondents' objection applications if they did not comply with the directions by the specified time. Ultimately, the court dismissed the respondents' objection applications due to their non-compliance with the court's directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established