Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Maxwell Peter Strindberg

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Maxwell Peter Strindberg, [2011] NNTTA 191 (3 November 2011)

Application No: WO11/311
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-

Maxwell Peter Strindberg (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
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 exploration 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:  Maxwell Peter Strindberg

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 exploration license E15/1276 to Maxwell Peter Strindberg (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant 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 an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

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 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 WO11/311 is 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, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Maxwell Peter Strindberg, was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants, representing the Widji native title group, sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence for petroleum exploration over their native title area, invoking the expedited procedure provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The applicants argued that the exploration activities would irreversibly damage their native title rights. The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the applicants' failure to comply with specific procedural directions rendered their objection application ineffective, potentially leading to the dismissal of the application under the springing order.

The court examined whether the applicants' procedural non-compliance warranted the dismissal of their objection application. It found that the applicants had been given clear directions by the court to ensure their application complied with procedural requirements. Despite this, the applicants failed to adhere to these directions, resulting in non-compliance. The court noted that the springing order provision in the Native Title Act allows for the dismissal of an objection application if the applicant fails to comply with procedural directions. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions justified the dismissal of their objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title objection applications to avoid the consequences of non-compliance.

The court dismissed the objection application due to the applicants' failure to comply with the court's procedural directions. This decision underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements in native title matters, particularly in expedited objection applications. The dismissal of the objection application resulted in the proposed exploration licence being granted, as the applicants were unable to effectively object to the grant under the circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established