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 163 (17 August 2011)

Application Nos: WO10/1724, WO10/1742
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: 15 August 2011
Date of reasons: 17 August 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration 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 Peter Strindberg

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 15 December 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences E15/1248 and E15/1237 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 20 December 2010, 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 E15/1248 and E15/1237.

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 15 August 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 WO10/1724 and WO10/1742 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
17 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Widji, represented by Marianne Velickovic and others, contesting the proposed grant of exploration licences over their native title area in Western Australia. The application was made under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicants had a sufficient objection to the grant of these licences to warrant a stay or modification of the proposed grant. The dispute centred on the impact of the proposed exploration on the native title holders' rights and interests.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicants' objections were sufficient to halt or alter the grant of exploration licences under the expedited procedure. The applicants argued that the exploration would adversely affect their native title rights, including their ability to access and use the land for cultural and spiritual purposes. The court also needed to consider the consequences of the applicants' failure to comply with procedural directions given by the court, specifically whether such non-compliance warranted the dismissal of their objection applications.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient objection to warrant a stay or modification of the proposed grant of exploration licences. The objections were considered speculative and insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of the expedited procedure. Moreover, the applicants' failure to comply with the court's procedural directions led to the dismissal of their objection applications. The court held that the applicants had not met the necessary standard to prevent the grant of the licences, and their procedural shortcomings further justified the dismissal of their objections. The court's decision upheld the grant of the exploration licences as proposed.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection applications and allowed the grant of the exploration licences to proceed as originally proposed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for robust objections to justify any interference with the grant process under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established