Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v McCallum Scott Johnston and Margaret Ann Cameron

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v McCallum Scott Johnston and Margaret Ann Cameron [2025] NNTTA 27 (24 September 2025)

Application No:

WO2024/0617

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

- and -

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

Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WCD2021/008)

(native title party)

- and -

McCallum Scott Johnston and Margaret Ann Cameron (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:	Anja Gambie-Becker, Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC

Representative of the grantee party:

McCallum Scott Johnston

Representatives of the Government party:

Michelle Rogers and David Crabtree, Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration

REASONS FOR DISMISSAL

On 12 July 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 20/2517 to McCallum Scott Johnston and Margaret Ann Cameron (the 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 (expedited procedure statement).
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.
The proposed licence is located approximately 10 km in an easterly direction from Cue and covers an area of approximately 0.46 km². It is entirely overlapped by the Yugunga-Nya People Part A native title determination (WCD2021/0008), held in trust by the Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC as the registered body corporate.
On 15 July 2024, Yugunga-Nya 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

In correspondence to the Tribunal dated 11 March 2025, the grantee stated its preference for the matter to proceed to inquiry and the matter was subsequently referred to a directions hearing on 30 April 2025.
On 30 April 2025 I made directions requiring all parties to provide submissions to the inquiry. Yuguna-Nya were directed to provide contentions and evidence by 2 July 2025 however on the date of compliance, no contentions or evidence was received from Yugunga-Nya.

On 9 July 2025, the Tribunal emailed all parties noting that Yugunga-Nya had failed to comply with directions and that the objection application was now at risk of dismissal. Parties were provided until 16 July 2025 to make any comments however no response was received from Yunguga-Nya by this date.

Consideration of Dismissal

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.
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.
On this occasion, it is my view that Yugunga-Nya has been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress this objection application but have failed to do so within a reasonable time. The Tribunal granted several extensions to enable Yugunga-Nya to provide evidence into the inquiry however Yugunga-Nya have failed to comply with directions on each occasion.
Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the objection application should be dismissed.

Determination

The expedited procedure objection application in relation to prospecting licence P 20/2517 is dismissed under s 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

Mr Glen Kelly
Member
24 September 2025

In the National Native Title Tribunal, Yugunga-Nya Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC brought an objection to the State of Western Australia's assertion that the grant of a prospecting licence to McCallum Scott Johnston and Margaret Ann Cameron attracted the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The proposed licence was located within the Yugunga-Nya People Part A native title determination area and was entirely overlapped by it. The dispute hinged on whether the grant of the licence was subject to the expedited procedure, which would allow the State to proceed without requiring the parties to enter the right to negotiate procedure. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the grant of the proposed licence was an act attracting the expedited procedure, and if so, whether the objection application should be dismissed for failure to comply with directions.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the grant of the proposed licence was indeed an act attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act and whether the objection application should be dismissed due to the native title party's failure to comply with directions. The Tribunal had to consider the nature of the expedited procedure, the consequences of dismissal, and the principles relevant to such a decision as set out in previous case law. The Tribunal's discretion to dismiss an objection application was broad, but the consequences for the native title party were significant. Therefore, the Tribunal had to carefully weigh all circumstances before making a determination.

The Tribunal considered the nature of the expedited procedure and the principles relevant to dismissal of an objection application for failure to comply with directions, as outlined in the case of Teelow v Page. The Tribunal had granted several extensions to the native title party to provide evidence into the inquiry, but Yugunga-Nya had failed to comply with these directions on each occasion. The Tribunal was satisfied that Yugunga-Nya had been afforded sufficient opportunity to progress the objection application, but had failed to do so within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the objection application should be dismissed under section 148(b) of the Native Title Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the expedited procedure objection application in relation to prospecting licence P 20/2517. The decision was based on Yugunga-Nya's failure to comply with directions, leading to the conclusion that the objection application should be dismissed. This decision was made under section 148(b) of the Native Title Act, which allows for the dismissal of an objection application 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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established