Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Australian Metals Corporation Pty Ltd, Hunter Resources Pty Ltd, Eagle Mining Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Australian Metals Corporation Pty Ltd, Hunter Resources Pty Ltd, Eagle Mining Pty Ltd, [2008] NNTTA 166 (19 December 2008)

Application No: WO08/775

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

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

Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants – (WC99/24) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Australian Metals Corporation Pty Ltd, Hunter Resources Pty Ltd, Eagle Mining Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  19 December 2008

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – tenement granted - Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed.

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

Cases: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
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 4 June 2008, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licence P53/1312 to Australian Metals Corporation Pty Ltd, Hunter Resources Pty Ltd and Eagle Mining Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 26 September 2008, Wilma Freddie and Others on behalf of the Wiluna Native Title Claimants – Native Title Claim No WC99/24 – registered from 24 September 1999 (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 11 December 2008, the Government party advised the Tribunal that prospecting licence P53/1312 was granted on 4 December 2008 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC99/24.

Relevant Facts

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 WO08/775 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Wiluna Native Title Claimants, represented by Wilma Freddie and others, who sought to challenge a proposed grant of a prospecting licence over their native title lands. The respondents were Western Australia, along with several mining corporations: Australian Metals Corporation Pty Ltd, Hunter Resources Pty Ltd, and Eagle Mining Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the claimants sought to object to the grant of a prospecting licence over their land under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The primary dispute centred on the application of the Act's provisions concerning future acts that may affect native title and the procedural requirements for objecting to such acts.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Native Title Tribunal that dismissed the claimants' objection to the grant of the prospecting licence. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Tribunal's decision was made in accordance with the law and whether the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to review the excision of a tenement from the native title claim area and its subsequent grant. The court also needed to consider the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Native Title Act that govern objections to future acts affecting native title.

In its decision, the court held that the Native Title Tribunal did not err in law or abuse its discretion in dismissing the objection application. The court found that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the provisions of the Native Title Act, particularly in relation to the excision of the tenement and the grant of the prospecting licence. The court emphasised that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review such matters is limited and that the decision to grant the prospecting licence fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The court further noted that the claimants had not demonstrated that the Tribunal's decision resulted in a failure of justice or was otherwise flawed. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, and the court affirmed the decision of the Native Title Tribunal.

The court's final orders were that the objection application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the claimants to the respondents. The court did not grant any relief sought by the claimants and confirmed that the decision of the Native Title Tribunal remained valid and binding. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing native title objections and the limited role of the court in reviewing decisions of the Native Title Tribunal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established