Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Mathew Gordon Vanmaris

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Mathew Gordon Vanmaris, [2011] NNTTA 155 (3 August 2011)

Application No: WO10/1725
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 (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Mathew Gordon Vanmaris (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 25 July 2011
Date of reasons: 3 August 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 Mathew Gordon Vanmaris

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 1 December 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P25/2189 to Mathew Gordon Vanmaris (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 30 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 7 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 25 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 application WO10/1725 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
3 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court of Australia involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia, who were seeking to object to the grant of a prospecting licence over land subject to native title claims. The primary dispute centred on the legal sufficiency of the objection application and whether the applicants had complied with the court's directions. The respondents to the objection application were the Commonwealth, the State of Western Australia, and Mathew Gordon Vanmaris.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the applicants had adequately demonstrated a significant risk of harm to their native title rights and whether they had complied with the procedural requirements set by the court. In particular, the court had to assess whether the objection application was sufficient to warrant an expedited procedure and whether the applicants had complied with the directions given in the earlier proceedings. The court was also required to consider the implications of the applicants' failure to comply with the directions, specifically whether the non-compliance warranted the dismissal of the objection application.

In its judgment, the Federal Court of Australia found that the applicants had failed to comply with the directions it had issued. As a result, the court issued a springing order, which would dismiss the objection application if the applicants did not comply with the directions within a specified timeframe. When the applicants did not meet the deadline, the court dismissed the objection application. The court held that the failure to comply with the directions demonstrated a lack of due diligence and that the applicants had not shown that they had taken the necessary steps to protect their native title rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application.

No further orders were made by the court in the judgment, as the dismissal of the objection application was sufficient to resolve the immediate dispute regarding the proposed grant of the prospecting licence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established