Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Thomas James Giri

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Thomas James Giri, [2011] NNTTA 209 (15 December 2011)

Application No: WO11/488
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-

Thomas James Giri (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 12 December 2011
Date of reasons: 15 December 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 Dennis Jacobs, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Thomas James Giri

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 20 April 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P24/4582 to Thomas James Giri (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 15 April 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 9 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 12 December 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 WO11/488 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
15 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Thomas James Giri, the applicants sought to object to the grant of a prospecting licence for gold exploration over native title land. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicants' objection could proceed under an expedited procedure, given the urgency of the matter. The dispute centred on the applicants' failure to comply with procedural directions issued by the Court, which had implications for the timely disposal of the objection application.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicants' non-compliance with the Court's directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application under a springing order. The applicants argued that the non-compliance was due to factors beyond their control and should not result in the dismissal of their objection. The respondent, the Commonwealth, contended that the applicants' failure to adhere to the directions necessitated the dismissal of the objection application as per the springing order.

The Court held that the applicants' non-compliance with the directions was a significant breach of the Court's process. The springing order was activated, leading to the dismissal of the objection application. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in expedited proceedings, particularly when dealing with matters of significant urgency and complexity. The Court concluded that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions justified the dismissal of their objection application.

In light of the dismissal of the objection application, the Court did not proceed to determine the merits of the applicants' objections to the proposed grant of the prospecting licence. The Court's decision underscored the necessity for parties to strictly follow procedural directions in expedited proceedings, especially in matters involving native title and significant government actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established