Angelina Cox & Ors on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura #2/Western Australia/Onslow Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Angelina Cox & Ors on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura #2/Western Australia/Onslow Resources Ltd, [2010] NNTTA 207 (15 December 2010)

Application Nos: WO10/940, WO10/941

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Angelina Cox & Ors on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura #2 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Onslow Resources Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            10 December 2010
Date of reasons:              15 December 2010

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration licences – expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Angelina Cox and Others on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura People/Western Australia/Globe Uranium Ltd, NNTT WO07/42, [2007] NNTTA 95 (17 September 2007), Hon C J Sumner

Representative of the

native title party: Ms Lea Notte, Pilbara Native Title Service

Representative of the
Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party:  Mr Ken Green, Green Legal

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 30 June 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licences E08/2130 and E08/2132 to Onslow Resources Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On 13 July 2010, Angelina Cox & Ors on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura #2 – Native Title Claim No. WC05/4, registered from 15 August 2006 (‘the native title party’) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 18 August 2010, requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavits on or before 29 November 2010. The Tribunal has previously considered an application for dismissal of a Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura #2 objection pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act (see Angelina Cox and Others on behalf of Puutu Kunti Kurrama & Pinikura People/Western Australia/Globe Uranium Ltd, NNTT WO07/42, [2007] NNTTA 95 (17 September 2007), Hon C J Sumner (at [21])). I adopt my findings in that matter for the purposes of this inquiry. In this present case, I find that the native title party has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions having submitted no statements of contention or supporting evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications WO10/940 and WO10/941 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President

15 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Angelina Cox and others on behalf of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, who are native title holders in the Onslow area of Western Australia. The dispute centred around the future acts of the respondents, Western Australia and Onslow Resources Ltd, specifically the proposed grant of exploration licences. The applicants sought to object to these grants under an expedited procedure, arguing that they would irreversibly affect their native title rights and interests. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether the applicants had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Native Title Act 1993, particularly in relation to the service of documents and the filing of affidavits, and whether the applicants' objection applications should be dismissed due to non-compliance. The court had to determine whether the procedural breaches were sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal of the applications or whether they could be rectified.

In its decision, the court held that the applicants had failed to comply with specific procedural directions, including the service of documents and the filing of affidavits. Despite acknowledging that the applicants had taken steps to remedy some of these issues, the court found that the procedural breaches were serious enough to dismiss the objection applications. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure the fairness and efficiency of the process. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection applications.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the objection applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established