Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/West River Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/West River Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 139 (21 July 2011)

Application No: WO10/1647
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-

West River Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 11 July 2011
Date of reasons: 21 July 2011

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration 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:  Gary Billing, Settlement West Settlement Agents

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 exploration licence E25/457 to West River 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 23 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 11 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 WO10/1647 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
21 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marianne Velickovic and others, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/West River Pty Ltd, was brought before the Federal Court to address a dispute concerning native title and a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The applicants sought to object to the grant of an exploration licence over land in the Gascoyne region of Western Australia, claiming that the grant would impact their native title rights. The dispute involved an expedited procedure objection application, focusing on whether the grant would interfere with the applicants' native title rights and interests.

The central legal issues revolved around the extent to which the proposed grant of an exploration licence could be considered a future act under native title law, and whether the applicants had complied with procedural requirements set out by the court. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicants' objection application was validly made and whether there were grounds for dismissing the application due to non-compliance with procedural directions. The applicants were required to demonstrate that the proposed grant would substantially impair their native title rights and interests.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the procedural history and the applicants' compliance with the directions issued. It was noted that the applicants had failed to adhere to specific procedural requirements, including the provision of necessary documentation and information. The court issued a springing order, stating that if the applicants did not comply with the directions by a specified date, their objection application would be dismissed. As the applicants did not comply, the objection application was dismissed, and the proposed grant of the exploration licence was not stayed. The court's decision affirmed the importance of procedural compliance in native title matters and underscored the consequences of non-compliance in expedited procedures.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established