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 145 (27 July 2011)

Application No: WO11/305
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-

Thomas James Giri (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 18 July 2011
Date of reasons: 27 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 Thomas James Giri

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 23 February 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P26/3832 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 1 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 13 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 18 July 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 WO11/305 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
27 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/Thomas James Giri concerns an objection to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence for petroleum exploration within native title land. The applicants sought to object to the grant of the prospecting licence under the Native Title Act 1993, invoking the expedited procedure for objection applications. The respondents, holders of the prospecting licence, sought dismissal of the objection application on the basis that the applicants had failed to comply with procedural directions issued by the Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants' failure to comply with procedural directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application under the expedited procedure. The Court had to consider whether the failure to comply with directions was sufficient to invoke the springing order, which dismisses the objection application if the applicants do not comply with a specified direction within a set timeframe.

The Court held that the applicants' non-compliance with the procedural directions was a significant breach, warranting the dismissal of the objection application. The Court found that the applicants' failure to file a substantive objection within the stipulated period was a clear and material non-compliance. This non-compliance activated the springing order, leading to the dismissal of the objection application. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly in matters involving native title and the expedited procedure for objection applications. The dismissal of the objection application was a result of the applicants' inability to meet the essential procedural obligations set by the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established