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 182 (10 October 2011)

Application No: WO11/216
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: 3 October 2011
Date of reasons: 10 October 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:  Mr Maxwell Stringberg

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 9 February 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E26/155 to Maxwell Peter Strindberg (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 14 February 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 22 March 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 3 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 WO11/216 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
10 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Maxwell Peter Strindberg was heard and determined. The applicants sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence by the respondent. The dispute revolved around the potential impact of the proposed exploration activities on native title rights and interests. The applicants, represented by Widji/Western Australia and Maxwell Peter Strindberg, argued that the proposed activities would adversely affect their native title rights and sought to have the grant of the exploration licence challenged under the Native Title Act 1993.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Native Title Act and the court's prior orders. The court was tasked with determining if the applicants' objection application was valid and whether the respondents had complied with the directions issued by the court. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the applicants had fulfilled their obligations to provide necessary information and whether the respondents had acted in accordance with the court's directions.

The court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions given by the court in previous proceedings. The applicants were required to provide certain information to the respondents, which they failed to do. Additionally, the applicants did not engage with the respondents to resolve the procedural issues. The court held that the failure to comply with the court's directions was a significant procedural default. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. The court also issued a springing order that the objection application would be dismissed if the applicants did not comply with the directions within a specified timeframe.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection application on the basis of the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions. The court further noted that if the applicants did not comply with the directions within the specified timeframe, the objection application would be dismissed without further notice. The court's decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in native title matters and the consequences of failing to adhere to court-imposed obligations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established