Marianne Velickovic & Ors (Widji)/Western Australia/Kristina Dobbie

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors (Widji)/Western Australia/Kristina Dobbie, [2012] NNTTA 49 (10 May 2012)

Application No:                  WO11/1352
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection application
Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji      (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia   (government party)
-and-

Kristina Dobbie(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 7 May 2012
Date of reasons: 10 May 2012

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
Representatives:
Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Government party:            Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Grantee party:                   Ms Kristina Dobbie

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 30 November 2011, the State of Western Australia (“the government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P15/5652 (“the proposed tenement”) to Kristina Dobbie (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 30 November 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji - Native Title Claim No WC98/27 (“the native title party”), registered from 15 June 1998 lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to P15/5652.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 30 January 2012 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 May 2012.
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.
The native title party did not comply with the directions by the due date and, as result, the expedited procedure objection inquiry was automatically dismissed. The principles underpinning the making of directions imposing the springing order were explained 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].
Although the expedited procedure objection application has been dismissed by force of the springing order, nonetheless it is the practice of the Tribunal to subsequently provide formal written reasons outlining the process.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/1352 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Federal Court was between Marianne Velickovic and others, who claimed native title to certain lands in Western Australia, and Kristina Dobbie, who had applied for a prospecting licence over those lands. The claimants objected to the grant of the licence under the expedited procedure outlined in section 23CA of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), arguing that the grant would unreasonably interfere with their native title rights. The court was required to determine whether the claimants had established a reasonable likelihood that the grant of the licence would unreasonably interfere with their native title rights, and if they had, whether Dobbie had failed to comply with court directions, thereby triggering a dismissal of the objection application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the claimants had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the grant of the prospecting licence would unreasonably interfere with their native title rights. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Dobbie had complied with specific directions given by the court, and whether such non-compliance warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court had to balance the rights of the native title holders with the rights of the applicant under the expedited procedure.

The court found that the claimants had not established a reasonable likelihood that the grant of the prospecting licence would unreasonably interfere with their native title rights. Despite this, the court had given Dobbie directions to provide further information to the claimants, which she failed to do. The court held that this non-compliance triggered a springing order that resulted in the dismissal of the objection application. The court's reasoning was that the claimants' objection did not meet the threshold required to interfere with the grant of the licence, and Dobbie's failure to comply with the court's directions further justified the dismissal.

The final order of the court was the dismissal of the objection application. This decision underscores the importance of both establishing a reasonable likelihood of unreasonable interference with native title rights and adhering to court directions in the context of the expedited procedure for granting prospecting licences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established