Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Pioneer Resources Limited; Blair Nickel Mine Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Pioneer Resources Limited; Blair Nickel Mine Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 159 (9 August 2011)

Application No: WO11/310
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-

Pioneer Resources Limited
Blair Nickel Mine Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 1 August 2011
Date of reasons: 9 August 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of amalgamation - 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 Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

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 amalgamation – exploration licence AM-E26/139 to Pioneer Resources Limited and Blair Nickel Mines Pty Ltd (‘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 16 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 1 August 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 WO11/310 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
9 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji people, the State of Western Australia, and Pioneer Resources Limited, with Blair Nickel Mine Pty Ltd also a party. The dispute centred around the proposed grant of an amalgamation exploration licence, which would have significant implications for native title rights. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the objections to the proposed grant of the licence, raised by the Widji people, should be considered under an expedited procedure. The Widji people argued that the grant would infringe upon their native title rights and sought to have the objections heard under an expedited procedure to prevent potential harm.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the objections to the grant of the licence were valid and whether the expedited procedure was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the failure to comply with the directions given in a previous case should result in the dismissal of the objection application. The Widji people argued that the grant of the licence would irreversibly affect their native title rights and cultural heritage, necessitating an expedited hearing. Pioneer Resources Limited, on the other hand, maintained that the objections were not valid and that the standard procedure was sufficient.

The court found that the objections raised by the Widji people were valid and that an expedited procedure was warranted due to the potential for irreversible harm to their native title rights. However, the court also noted that the Widji people had failed to comply with directions given in a previous case, which led to a springing order being made. This order stipulated that if the Widji people did not comply with the directions, their objection application would be dismissed. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application due to the failure to comply with the directions. The court's decision was based on the principle that parties must adhere to court directions to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the objection application due to the failure to comply with directions, and the proposed grant of the amalgamation exploration licence was not subject to the expedited procedure. The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to court directions and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The dismissal of the objection application also underscores the need for parties to take their obligations seriously and to ensure that they comply with all court directions in a timely and appropriate manner.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established