Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Raymond John Francis, Thomas James Giri

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Raymond John Francis, Thomas James Giri, [2011] NNTTA 131 (5 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1653
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 (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Raymond John Francis, Thomas James Giri (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 13 June 2011
Date of reasons: 5 July 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting 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:  Raymond John Francis, Thomas James Giri

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 20 October 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P24/4547 to Raymond John Francis, Thomas James Giri (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 22 November 2010, 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 in relation to P24/4547.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 25 January 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 13 June 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 WO10/1653 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
5 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Raymond John Francis and Thomas James Giri, the primary dispute revolved around the proposed grant of a prospecting licence, which raised questions of native title rights. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought to object to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence under an expedited procedure, contending that it would infringe upon their native title rights. The respondents, including the Commonwealth and the relevant state authorities, argued that the applicants had not satisfied the procedural requirements for such an objection.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had properly filed their objection under the expedited procedure and whether the court should dismiss the objection application due to the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicants' non-compliance warranted a springing order dismissing the objection application, as provided for in the court's earlier directions. The applicants had been directed to serve certain documents on the respondents and to provide evidence in support of their objection, but they failed to do so within the specified timeframe.

The court held that the applicants had not complied with the directions and, consequently, their objection application was dismissed. The court noted that the applicants had been given a clear opportunity to remedy their non-compliance but had failed to do so. The court also emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly in matters involving native title rights, where timely and accurate submissions are crucial. The dismissal of the objection application was deemed necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice and to avoid further delays in the licensing process.

No further orders were made by the court. The dismissal of the objection application effectively allowed the respondents to proceed with the grant of the prospecting licence, as the applicants had not demonstrated a valid objection under the expedited procedure.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established