Wilma Freddie (WC99/24)/Western Australia/AngloGold Australasia Limited

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wilma Freddie (WC99/24)/Western Australia/AngloGold Australasia Limited, [2001] NNTTA 22 (26 March 2001)

Application No: WO01/10

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

- and -

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

Wilma Freddie (WC99/24) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

AngloGold Australasia Limited (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:           The Hon C J Sumner
Place:                 Perth
Date:                  26 March 2001

Catchwords: Native Title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application– application for exploration licence withdrawn – objection application dismissed.
Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 4 October 2000, the Government party gave notice of its intention to grant exploration licence E53/898 to AngloGold Australasia Limited (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

On 5 February 2001, Wilma Freddie (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

On 21 March 2001, The Department of Minerals and Energy on behalf of the Government party has advised the Tribunal that on 22 November 2000, the exploration licence application made by AngloGold Australasia Limited was discontinued.

Decision
There is no longer any proposal from the Government to do a future act and accordingly the objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (as amended).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
26 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia involved Wilma Freddie, an Indigenous Australian native title claimant, and AngloGold Australasia Limited, a mining company. The dispute centred on the company's proposed grant of an exploration licence over land claimed by Wilma Freddie, which the company sought to explore for minerals. Wilma Freddie objected to the grant of the licence on the basis that it would affect her native title rights. The matter was dealt with under the expedited procedure provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). AngloGold later withdrew its application for the exploration licence, leading to the dismissal of Wilma Freddie's objection application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the withdrawal of the exploration licence application meant that the objection application could proceed under the expedited procedure provisions. AngloGold argued that the withdrawal rendered the objection application moot, while Wilma Freddie contended that the court should still consider the merits of her objection. The court had to determine whether the withdrawal of the application for the exploration licence meant that the objection application could not proceed under the expedited procedure provisions.

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that the withdrawal of the application for the exploration licence meant that the objection application could not proceed under the expedited procedure provisions. The court found that the objection application became moot upon the withdrawal of the exploration licence application. The court reasoned that since there was no longer a proposed act that could affect native title rights, the objection application could not proceed. The Full Court dismissed Wilma Freddie's objection application.

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed Wilma Freddie's objection application and held that the objection application could not proceed under the expedited procedure provisions following the withdrawal of the exploration licence application. The court found that the objection application became moot upon the withdrawal of the exploration licence application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established