Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Red Field Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Red Field Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 125 (4 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1650
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-

Red Field Pty Ltd (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: 4 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:  Mr Peter Gianni

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 P27/2005 to Red Field Pty Ltd (‘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.

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 WO10/1650 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
4 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Red Field Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding native title claims in relation to a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. The respondents, who claimed native title over the area, filed an objection to the grant of the prospecting licence, arguing it would interfere with their native title rights. The applicants sought to dismiss the objection under the expedited procedure provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The primary issue for the court was whether the respondents' failure to comply with specific procedural directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application.

The court considered whether the respondents' non-compliance with the procedural directions was sufficient to justify the dismissal of their objection. The court noted that the respondents had not only failed to comply with the directions but had also been warned of the potential consequences of non-compliance. Given the seriousness of the matter and the clear warnings provided, the court found that the respondents' failure to adhere to the procedural requirements warranted the dismissal of their objection. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the objection application if the respondents did not comply with certain conditions within a specified timeframe, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the objection.

Following the court's reasoning, the objection application was dismissed. The court found that the respondents' failure to comply with the procedural directions and the warnings issued justified the dismissal of their objection. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in such matters and the consequences of non-compliance. The dismissal of the objection application meant that the applicants could proceed with their proposed prospecting activities without further interference from the respondents' native title claims.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established