Andrew Watson (WC96/71)/Western Australia/Stockdale Prospecting Ltd - [2000] NNTTA 191

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Andrew Watson (WC96/71)/Western Australia/Stockdale Prospecting Ltd, [2000] NNTTA 191 (16 May 2000)

Application No: WO99/525

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

- and -

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

Andrew Watson (WC96/71) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Stockdale Prospecting Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:       The Hon C. J. Sumner, Deputy President
Place:             Perth
Date:              16 May 2000

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

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 11 August 1999, the Government party gave notice of its intention to grant exploration licence 38/1256 to Stockdale Prospecting Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

On 8 November 1999 Andrew Watson (’the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

The Department of Minerals and Energy on behalf of the Government party has advised the Tribunal that on 4 May 2000 the exploration licence application 38/1256 made by Stockdale Prospecting Ltd was discontinued.

Decision

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

The Hon C. J. Sumner
Deputy President

16 May 2000

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Andrew Watson (WC96/71)/Western Australia/Stockdale Prospect...

Details

AGLC: Andrew Watson (WC96/71)/Western Australia/Stockdale Prospecting Ltd [2000] NNTTA 191
Case: [2000] NNTTA 191
Decision Date: 16 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Andrew Watson, an individual asserting native title, and Stockdale Prospecting Ltd, a company seeking an exploration licence over land in Western Australia. Watson objected to his native title claim being included in an expedited procedure application, which was part of Stockdale’s application for an exploration licence. Following the discontinuation of Stockdale’s exploration licence application, Watson's objection application was dismissed.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether Watson's objection to the inclusion of his native title claim in the expedited procedure application was valid and, subsequently, whether the dismissal of the objection application was justified after Stockdale discontinued its exploration licence application. The court had to consider the procedural fairness and the implications of the withdrawal of the main application on the subsidiary objection application.

The court determined that since Stockdale had discontinued its exploration licence application, there was no longer a need to address the objection to the inclusion of Watson's native title claim in the expedited procedure. The court held that the objection application became moot upon the withdrawal of the primary application, and thus, it was appropriate to dismiss the objection application. The court emphasised that the procedural fairness to Watson was maintained as the objection was no longer relevant due to the discontinuation of the main application.

The court ordered the dismissal of Watson's objection application, reflecting that the legal issues raised by the objection were no longer pertinent following the discontinuation of the exploration licence application by Stockdale Prospecting Ltd.

Orders