Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lyndon Scott Mahoney

Case [2024] NNTTA 91


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lyndon Scott Mahoney & Anor [2024] NNTTA 91 (10 December 2024)

Application No:

WO2024/0530-0535

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2014/004)

(native title party)

- and -

Lyndon Scott Mahoney  

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:

Mr Glen Kelly

Place:

Perth

Date:

10 December 2024

Catchwords:

​Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – s 148(b) – objection applications dismissed

Legislation:

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 148(b)

Cases:

Michael Daniel Teelow/Michael Page/Northern Territory [2001] NNTTA 107; 166 FLR 266 (Teelow v Page)

Representative of the native title party: Katarina Bevk, Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC
Representative of the grantee parties: Lyndon Scott Mahoney
Representatives of the Government party: Andrea Wyles and David Crabtree, Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

Background

  1. On 19 April 2024, the State of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences P 15/6833-S, P 15/6834-S, P 15/6835-S, P 15/6836-S, P 15/6837-S, and P 15/6838-S to the grantee party Lyndon Scott Mahoney. The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the proposed licences are acts attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act (expedited procedure statement).

  2. If the expedited procedure applies, the State may grant the proposed licences without requiring parties to enter into the right to negotiate procedure per s 31 of the Native Title Act.

  3. The details of the proposed licences are as follows:

    (a)P 15/6833-S is located approximately 49km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.09km2.

    (b)P 15/6834-S is located approximately 48km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.1km2.

    (c)P 15/6835-S is located approximately 43km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.1km2.

    (d)P 15/6836-S is located approximately 49km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.1km2.

    (e)P 15/6837-S is located approximately 48km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.1km2.

    (f)P 15/6838-S is located approximately 43km south easterly of Kambalda and covers an area of approximately 0.1km2.

  4. All six proposed licences sit wholly within the registered native title claim area of the Ngadju People (WCD2014/004 and WCD2017/002).

  5. On 26 June 2024, the legal representative for Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC lodged objections with the National Native Title Tribunal in response to the State's assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licences. The objection applications were lodged within the timeframe outlined in s 32(3) of the Native Title Act and therefore, under s 32(4), the Tribunal is required to determine whether the grant of the proposed licences is an act attracting the expedited procedure.

Relevant Facts

  1. Under a delegation from the President of the Tribunal, I was appointed to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the inquiry in these matters.

  2. At the first preliminary conference on 7 August 2024, the grantee party considered negotiating an agreement however at the time of the status conference on 18 September 2024, the grantee party requested the matter proceed to inquiry.

  3. On 2 October 2024, I made directions requiring all parties to provide contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry.  Ngadju were directed to provide contentions and evidence into the inquiry by 20 November 2024 however on the Ngadju compliance date, no material was received.

  4. On 25 November 2024, the Tribunal emailed all parties noting that Ngadju had failed to comply and that the objection applications were now at risk of dismissal under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act. Parties were given until close of business 2 December 2024 to provide a response. No response from Ngadju was received or has been received to date.

Consideration of Dismissal

  1. Pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act, the Tribunal may dismiss an objection application at any stage of the inquiry in circumstances where the native title party fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the objection application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal. While the Tribunal has broad discretion to dismiss an objection application, doing so has significant consequences for the native title party and is not an action taken lightly.

  2. The nature of the expedited procedure and the principles relevant to consideration of dismissal of an objection application for failure to comply with directions are set out in the Tribunal's decision in Teelow v Page ([13]). I have applied those principles in my consideration of this matter.

  3. On this occasion, it is my view that Ngadju has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress this objection application but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. Ngadju have failed to comply with directions set by the Tribunal, have not provided reasoning for their non-compliance and have otherwise made no attempt to submit materials into this inquiry.  

  4. Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.

Determination

  1. The expedited procedure objection applications in relation to P 15/6833-S, P 15/6834-S, P 15/6835-S, P 15/6836-S, P 15/6837-S, and P 15/6838-S are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

Mr Glen Kelly
Member
10 December 2024

Details
AGLC
Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lyndon Scott Mahoney [2024] NNTTA 91
Case
[2024] NNTTA 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Native Title Tribunal was asked to decide on objection applications lodged by the Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC against the proposed grant of exploration licences by the State of Western Australia to Lyndon Scott Mahoney. The licences, which fall within the registered native title claim area of the Ngadju People, were subject to the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993. The core issue before the Tribunal was whether the objection applications should be dismissed due to the native title party's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions and proceed with the objection application within a reasonable time. This question involved interpreting the legal principles regarding the dismissal of objection applications under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act and assessing the circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal found that the native title party, Ngadju Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, had failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide contentions and evidence by the specified deadline. Despite being notified of the risk of dismissal, Ngadju did not provide any material or respond to the Tribunal's notice. The Tribunal considered the principles outlined in the decision of Teelow v Page and determined that Ngadju had not acted within a reasonable time and had not provided any justification for their non-compliance. The Tribunal concluded that Ngadju had been given sufficient opportunity to progress the objection application and that their failure to comply with the directions warranted the dismissal of the objection applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection applications in relation to the proposed grants of exploration licences P 15/6833-S, P 15/6834-S, P 15/6835-S, P 15/6836-S, P 15/6837-S, and P 15/6838-S, pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act. The decision highlights the importance of compliance with Tribunal directions in native title proceedings and the potential consequences for native title parties who fail to meet these obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.