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 141 (21 July 2011)

Application No: WO11/296
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 (WC98/27) (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: 18 July 2011
Date of reasons: 21 July 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 Max Strindberg

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 23 February 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E15/1262 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 1 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 6 May 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 18 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 WO11/296 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
21 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an objection to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over land in Western Australia claimed by the Widji people as native title holders. The objectors, including Marianne Velickovic and others, sought an expedited procedure objection under the Native Title Act 1993. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the merits of the objection.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the objectors had failed to comply with the court's directions, and if so, whether the objection application should be dismissed under a springing order. The objectors argued that they had complied with the court's directions, while the respondents contended that the objectors had not met the required standards. The court had to balance the urgency of the exploration licence application against the procedural obligations of the objectors.

The court found that the objectors had not complied with the directions issued by the court, resulting in the dismissal of their objection application. The court noted that the objectors had been given specific directions to rectify their non-compliance, but they had not taken the necessary steps to address the issues. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the objection application. The decision was based on the principle that compliance with procedural requirements is essential in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving native title and the expedited procedure objection process.

The court dismissed the objection application and ordered that the application be dismissed if the objectors did not comply with the directions to rectify their non-compliance within a specified timeframe. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to court directions in native title objection proceedings, particularly where an expedited procedure is involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established