Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Wayne Richard Jones

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Wayne Richard Jones, [2011] NNTTA 168 (22 August 2011)

Application No: WO10/1718
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-

Wayne Richard Jones (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 15 August 2011
Date of reasons: 22 August 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:  Ms Grace Tan, Central Tenement Services

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 15 December 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P26/3789 to Wayne Richard Jones (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 20 December 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 7 February 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 15 August 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 WO10/1718 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
22 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of the Widji/Western Australia/Wayne Richard Jones native title group. They sought to object to the proposed grant of a prospecting licence over their native title land under the Native Title Act 1993. The application was made under the expedited procedure, requiring strict compliance with procedural timelines. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had complied with the procedural directions issued by the Court. The court was required to determine whether the applicants' failure to comply with the directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application under the Native Title Act. The applicants had been given explicit directions to comply with certain procedural steps, and the court needed to assess the impact of their non-compliance on the proceedings.

The court held that the applicants had failed to comply with the directions issued to them. It was clear that they did not meet the strict procedural requirements set out for expedited procedure applications. The court imposed a springing order, which meant that if the applicants did not comply with the directions by a specified date, their objection application would be dismissed. Given the applicants' non-compliance, the court dismissed the objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural directions, particularly in expedited proceedings where timelines are crucial.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection application due to the applicants' failure to comply with the procedural directions. The court made it clear that strict adherence to procedural timelines is essential in expedited proceedings 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