Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd,
[2012] NNTTA 64 (12 June 2012)

Application No:                 WO11/1215
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji          (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia   (government party)
-and-

Puck Resources Pty Ltd(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 11 June 2012
Date of reasons: 12 June 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order – expedited procedure objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103
Representatives:
Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Grantee party:                   Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 19 October 2011, the State of Western Australia (“the government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E27/465 to Puck Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 27 October 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – Native Title Claim No WC98/27 (“the native title party”) registered from 15 June 1998, lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to E27/465.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made Directions on 15 November 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 11 June 2012.
The Directions imposed a springing order which had the effect of immediately dismissing the objection application pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there was non-compliance by the due date.
The principles governing the making of “springing” or “guillotine” Directions were explained in Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103. I adopt those principles for the purpose of this decision.
The Springing Direction, having required the native title party to provide contentions by close of business on 11 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/1215 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd involved a dispute over native title rights in relation to a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The applicants, Marianne Velickovic and others, sought to object to the grant of the licence on the basis of potential impacts on their native title rights. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to determine the merits of the objection and the procedural issues that arose during the case.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicants had properly complied with the procedural directions issued by the court and the validity of the applicants' objections to the grant of the exploration licence. The court had to consider whether the applicants' failure to comply with certain procedural directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there was a sufficient basis for the applicants' objection to the grant of the exploration licence under the Native Title Act 1993.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the applicants had not fully complied with the procedural directions issued by the court, which included providing detailed evidence and specific information regarding their native title rights and the potential impacts of the proposed exploration activities. The court held that the applicants' failure to comply with these directions was a significant procedural breach. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application and imposed a springing order, which meant that if the applicants did not comply with certain conditions, the application would be permanently dismissed. The court also noted that even if the procedural issues had not arisen, the applicants' objections to the grant of the exploration licence were not well-founded, as they did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of adverse impacts on their native title rights.

The court's final orders included the dismissal of the objection application and the imposition of a springing order. This meant that the applicants had to comply with specific conditions, including providing further evidence and information, within a specified timeframe. If the applicants failed to meet these conditions, the objection application would be permanently dismissed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for applicants to provide sufficient evidence to support their objections 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