Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lawrence John Molloy

[2025] NNTTA 26

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Lawrence John Molloy and Another [2025] NNTTA 26 (24 September 2025)

Application No: WO2025/0030

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application

Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2017/007)

(native title party)

- and -

Laurence John Molloy

(grantee party)

- and -

State of Western Australia

(Government party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:	Mr Glen Kelly
Place:	Perth
Date:	24 September 2025

Catchwords:	Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – s 148(b) – objection application 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:	Matthew Berg, Ngoonooru Wajarri Land Group of the Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation

Representative of the grantee party: Laurence John Molloy

Representative of the Government party: Michelle Rogers and David Crabtree, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration

REASONS FOR DISMISSAL

1. On 29 November 2024, the State of Western Australia gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P 51/3407-S to Laurence John Molloy (grantee). The s 29 notice included a statement that the State considers the grant of the proposed licence to be an act attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act.

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

3. The proposed licence is located approximately 55 km in a northeasterly direction from Cue and covers an area of approximately 0.1 km².  The proposed licence sits within the area of the Wajarri Yamatji Part A native title determination (WCD2017/007), held in trust by the Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC as the registered native title body corporate.

4. On 20 January 2025, Wajarri Yamaji lodged an objection to the State’s assertion that the expedited procedure applies to the grant of the licence with the National Native Title Tribunal. The objection application was lodged within the timeframe outlined in s 32(3) of the Native Title Act and as such, under s 32(4), the Tribunal is required to determine whether the grant of the proposed licence 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 purposes of the inquiry in this matter.

2. At a Conference held on 25 June 2025, the grantee stated their preference for the matter to proceed to inquiry. I made directions requiring all parties to provide submissions to the inquiry. Wajarri Yamaji were directed to provide contentions and evidence by 27 August 2025, however on the date of compliance, no contentions or evidence were received from Wajarri Yamaji.

3. On 2 September 2025 the Tribunal sent an email to all parties, noting that Wajarri Yamaji had failed to comply with directions and that the objection application was now at risk of dismissal. Parties were provided until close of business 9 September 2025 to make any comments and in the case of Wajarri Yamaji request further time. No response was received from Wajarri Yamaji.

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 Wajarri Yamaji has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress this objection application but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. The Tribunal allowed ample time and opportunity for Wajarri Yamaji to provide evidence for the inquiry or request an extension to do so, however Wajarri Yamaji failed to comply with directions.

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 application in relation to prospecting licence P 51/3407-S is dismissed under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

Mr Glen Kelly
Member
24 September 2025