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

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Western Resources Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 178 (30 September 2011)

Application No: WO11/489
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-

Western Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 26 September 2011
Date of reasons: 30 September 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 Eamon Cornelius, Western Tenement Services

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 P24/4571 to Western Resources Pty Ltd (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 6 June 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 26 September 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 WO11/489 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
30 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Marianne Velickovic and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Western Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute centered around a proposed grant of a prospecting licence, which the respondents objected to on the grounds that it would impact their native title rights. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants sought an expedited procedure objection application to challenge the grant of the prospecting licence, asserting that it would affect their native title rights.

The court had to decide whether the respondents had complied with the directions given for the objection application. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the respondents had provided the necessary affidavits and whether they had adequately substantiated their objections. The court also had to determine if a springing order, dismissing the objection application if the respondents did not comply with the directions, was appropriate.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the respondents had failed to comply with the directions provided. The respondents did not submit the required affidavits and did not adequately substantiate their objections. The court found that the respondents' failure to comply with the directions was not due to any fault or neglect on their part. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the respondents' failure to comply warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the objection application, given the non-compliance with the directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established