William James Warrell on behalf of Yued/Western Australia/Images Resources NL

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

William James Warrell on behalf of Yued/Western Australia/Images Resources NL, [2004] NNTTA 41 (15 June 2004)

Application No: WO03/531

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

- and -

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

William James Warrell on behalf of Yued – (WC97/71) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Images Resources NL (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:       The Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:             Perth
Date:              15 June 2004

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – grant made with exclusion of area covered by claim – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 12 March 2003, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E70/2351 to Image Resources NL (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 11 July 2003, William James Warrell on behalf of Yued (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal. The objection application WO03/531 related to the grant of exploration licence E70/2351.
The Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E70/2351 was granted on 14 May 2004 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC97/71. The Government party advised that the excisions effectively resulted in only private land and road reserves being included within the granted area.
The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner). Further, in this case the grant was not a future act as native title was not affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

The expedited procedure objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993.

The Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
15 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, William James Warrell, representing the Yued people, sought to challenge the grant of an exploration licence by Images Resources NL over land in Western Australia, which overlapped with their native title claim. The Yued people lodged an objection to the grant, arguing it interfered with their native title rights. The case reached the court as an expedited procedure objection application, focusing on whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Federal Court of Australia to grant the licence despite the native title claim.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain an objection application challenging the grant of an exploration licence, particularly when the Tribunal had already excluded the area covered by the native title claim from the grant. The court had to determine if the objection application could proceed under the Native Title Act 1993, considering the Tribunal's prior exclusion of the claimed area from the licence.

The court held that once the Federal Court of Australia had made the grant with the exclusion of the area covered by the native title claim, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the objection application. The court reasoned that the Tribunal's role was limited to reviewing decisions made by the Federal Court, and since the Federal Court had already acted by excluding the claimed area, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the objection application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional boundaries within the native title framework, affirming that the Tribunal could not intervene in a matter already addressed by the Federal Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established