Olivia Dimer & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Ora Banda Gold Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Olivia Dimer & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Ora Banda Gold Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 41 (27 April 2012)

Application No: WO11/1008
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Olivia Dimer & Ors on behalf of Widji (native title party)
-and-
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
-and-

Ora Banda Gold Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:John Sosso, Deputy President
Place:Perth
Date of dismissal: 23 April 2012
Date of reasons: 27 April 2012

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 applications 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 24 August 2011, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E24/178 to Ora Banda Gold Pty Ltd (the grantee party) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 2 September 2011, Olivia Dimer & 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 19 September 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 23 April 2012. The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications 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 WO11/1008 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President
27 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Olivia Dimer and others on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Ora Banda Gold Pty Ltd, who lodged objection applications regarding a proposed grant of an exploration licence over native title lands. The applicants sought to object under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) to the grant of a mining exploration licence over native title land. They applied for an expedited procedure, and the respondents were the Commonwealth and the applicant for the exploration licence. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the applicants' objection applications should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with court directions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had complied with the directions given by the court and whether the springing order, which provided for the dismissal of the objection applications in the event of non-compliance, should be activated. The applicants argued that they had made efforts to comply with the directions, but the respondents contended that the applicants had not fully complied and that the springing order should be enforced.

The court held that the applicants had not complied with the court's directions and, as a result, the springing order was activated. The court found that the applicants had not taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the directions, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so. The court concluded that the applicants' failure to comply with the directions justified the dismissal of their objection applications. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection applications and granted the respondents' application for an order dismissing the objection applications.

The court's decision effectively resolved the dispute, allowing the proposed grant of the exploration licence to proceed without the objections raised by the applicants. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of adhering to court directions and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of expedited procedure objection applications under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established