Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of the Thalanyji People/ Western Australia/Geological Resources Pty Ltd

Case [2012] NNTTA 76


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of the Thalanyji People/ Western Australia/Geological Resources Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 76 (29 June 2012)

Application No:        WO11/774

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

-and-

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

Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Thalanyji           
  (native title party)
-and-

The State of Western Australia   (government party)

-and-

Geological Resources Pty Ltd   (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  John Sosso
Place:  Brisbane
Date of dismissal:            12 June 2012
Date of reasons:              29 June 2012

Catchwords:  Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – expedited procedure objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth), s 148(b)

Cases:Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (23 February 2006), Hon C J Sumner

Representatives

Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Grantee party:                   Mr Peter del Fante, Geological Resources Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

  1. On 29 June 2011, the State of Western Australia (“the government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/2238 (“the proposed tenement”) to Geological Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

  2. On 7 July 2011, Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (“the native title party”) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to E08/2238.

Relevant facts

  1. At the adjourned preliminary conference for expedited procedure objection application WO11/774 on 11 April 2012 the grantee party requested that the matter proceed to inquiry on the basis that it did not accept either the Alternative Heritage Agreement or any other agreement, including amended prior agreements with the grantee party. All parties agreed to proceed to inquiry and Directions were made requiring, inter alia, the native title party to provide contentions, supported by affidavits and any other documentary evidence, to the Tribunal and all other parties on or before 7 May 2012.

  2. By the due date for compliance by the native title party, no contentions had been received nor had there been any contact from the native title party requesting additional time for compliance.

  3. A Listing Hearing was convened on 7 June 2012 at which time the government party requested that the expedited procedure objection application be dismissed under s. 148(b) of the Act for failure of the native title party to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. The grantee party agreed with this request.

  4. The native title party did not attend the Listing Hearing on 7 June 2012 and did not respond to the Tribunal’s notice regarding the government party’s request that the expedited procedure objection application be dismissed under s. 148(b) of the Act.

  5. As the native title party had not complied with the Directions of the Tribunal nor made any contact with the Tribunal between 11 April 2012 and 7 June 2012, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application on 12 June 2012 in accordance with the submissions of the government and grantee parties.

  6. In making the decision to dismiss this application for non-compliance, I adopt the Tribunal’s findings in Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanyji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (23 February 2006), Hon C J Sumner that the native title party has failed within a reasonable time to proceed with the application and to comply with the Tribunal’s directions having submitted no contentions or documentary evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply.

Decision

  1. Expedited procedure objection application WO11/774 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

John Sosso
Deputy President

Details
AGLC
Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of the Thalanyji People/ Western Australia/Geological Resources Pty Ltd [2012] NNTTA 76
Case
[2012] NNTTA 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of the Thalanyji People, the respondent, versus Western Australia and Geological Resources Pty Ltd, the applicants, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to decide whether to dismiss an objection application under the Native Title Act 1993, due to the respondents' failure to comply with procedural directions. The dispute centred on the respondents' objection to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over land claimed by the Thalanyji People. The applicants sought an expedited procedure objection application to be dismissed on the grounds that the respondents had failed to comply with the directions given by the Court.

The central legal issue was whether the respondents' failure to comply with procedural directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The Court needed to consider the specific circumstances under which the directions were issued, the nature of the respondents' non-compliance, and the potential impact on the integrity of the legal process. The Court also had to weigh the rights of the Thalanyji People to object to the exploration licence against the applicants' rights to a timely resolution of the matter.

In dismissing the objection application, the Court found that the respondents' failure to comply with the procedural directions was significant and prejudiced the applicants' right to an expeditious resolution of the matter. The Court emphasised that the respondents' non-compliance had caused unnecessary delays and had undermined the integrity of the legal process. The Court also noted that the respondents had not demonstrated any substantial impediment to their ability to comply with the directions. The Court concluded that the dismissal of the objection application was necessary to uphold the principles of procedural fairness and to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the objection application, allowing the applicants' application to proceed without the respondents' objection. This decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural directions in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving native title claims and exploration licences. The dismissal of the objection application enables the applicants to pursue their exploration activities, subject to any future determinations regarding the native title rights of the Thalanyji People.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.