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 183 (10 October 2011)

Application Nos: WO11/214, WO11/227, WO11/228
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-

Maxwell Peter Strindberg (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
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 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 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 prospecting licences P26/3829, P26/3830 and P263831 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 expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in relation to P26/3829 (WO11/227), P26/3830 (WO11/214) and P26/3831 (WO11/228).

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 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 WO11/214, WO11/227 and WO11/228 are 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

The case involved a dispute over native title claims by Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji people, with the State of Western Australia and Maxwell Peter Strindberg as respondents. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents had complied with the procedural directions set out in the court's orders regarding the objection applications to the proposed grant of prospecting licences. The applicants argued that the respondents had failed to comply with the directions, which mandated, among other things, the provision of a written report from a consultant hydrogeologist and the attendance of key witnesses at a hearing. The court had to determine whether the respondents' non-compliance warranted the dismissal of their objection applications under a springing order.

The court examined the respondents' submissions and evidence to ascertain whether they had met the required procedural obligations. It was found that the respondents had not provided the mandated written report from a consultant hydrogeologist, nor had they attended the hearing as directed. The court concluded that the respondents had not fulfilled the procedural requirements set out in the orders, and therefore, their objection applications were dismissed. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that procedural fairness and compliance with court orders are fundamental to the administration of justice.

Given the respondents' non-compliance with the court's directions, the springing order was activated, leading to the dismissal of the objection applications. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly in matters involving native title claims, to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. The dismissal of the objection applications resulted in the proposed grant of prospecting licences proceeding without the respondents' objections being considered.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection applications brought by the respondents due to their failure to comply with the procedural directions set out in the court's previous orders. The dismissal allowed the proposed grant of prospecting licences to proceed, effectively resolving the dispute in favour of the applicants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established