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

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Western Resources Pty Ltd, Zetek Resources Pty Ltd, [2011] NNTTA 197 (11 November 2011)

Application No: WO11/727
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, Zetek Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 7 November 2011
Date of reasons: 11 November 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 15 June 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P24/4583 to Western Resources Pty Ltd and Zetek Resources Pty Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 10 June 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 2 August 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 7 November 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 on or before 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 WO11/727 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
11 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Marianne Velickovic and others, on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Western Resources Pty Ltd and Zetek Resources Pty Ltd. The primary dispute centred on an expedited procedure objection application regarding a proposed grant of a prospecting licence. The application was brought under the Native Title Act 1993, with the Federal Court exercising its jurisdiction over native title matters.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the applicants had complied with the court's directions and whether there was a valid basis for the objection to the proposed prospecting licence. The applicants were required to adhere to specific procedural steps, and the court had to determine if their failure to comply warranted the dismissal of their objection application. Additionally, the court examined the merits of the objection itself, assessing whether there were substantive grounds for opposing the grant of the prospecting licence.

The court found that the applicants had not complied with the directions issued by the court, which was a critical procedural requirement. Despite the applicants' arguments, the court concluded that their failure to comply with the court's directions was significant. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the objection application under the springing order, which provided for the dismissal in the event of non-compliance. The court ruled that the applicants' procedural lapses and lack of compliance with the court's directions were sufficient grounds for dismissing the objection application. The court did not find it necessary to address the substantive merits of the objection as the procedural issue was determinative.

The court ordered that the objection application be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions, leading to the grant of the prospecting licence proceeding as planned. The court's decision emphasised the importance of procedural compliance in such matters, highlighting the consequences of not adhering to court directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established