Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/ Western Australia/ GTI Resources Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/ Western Australia/ GTI Resources Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 117 (16 August 2013)
Applications No: WO2012/0773; WO2012/0852

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 -                   (native title party)
(WCD2008/003)
-and-
The State of Western Australia   (Government party)
-and-
GTI Resources Ltd   (grantee party)
DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            14 August 2013
Date of reasons:              16 August 2013
Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration and prospecting permits - expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – expedited procedure objection applications 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                    Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd
REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Background
[1]        On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the State of Western Australia (“the Government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant various exploration and prospecting permits (“the proposed tenements”) to GTI Resources Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
[2]        On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (“the native title party”) lodged expedited procedure objection applications with the National Native Title Tribunal in relation to the notice about the proposed tenements.
Relevant facts
[3]        On 26 June 2013, as no progress had been made and no agreement was imminent, the expedited procedure objection applications listed in the attached schedule were programmed for inquiry. Directions dates were reinstated by which the native title party was required to provide contentions, supported by affidavits and any other documentary evidence, to the Tribunal and all other parties on or before 5 August 2013.
[4]        By the due date for compliance for 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.
[5] On 8 August 2013, the Government party requested that the expedited procedure objection applications be dismissed under s. 148(b) of the Act for failure of the native title party to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.
[6]        The native title party was given until 12 August 2013 to submit any reasons as to why they believed the objection applications listed in the attached schedule should not be dismissed. No reply was received. As the native title party had not complied with the Directions of the Tribunal, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection applications on 14 August 2013 in accordance with the submissions of the Government party.
[7]        In making the decision to dismiss this applications for non-compliance, I adopt the approach taken by the Tribunal 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, where the native title party had failed within a reasonable time to proceed with an application and had failed 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
[8] Expedited procedure objection applications WO2012/0773 and WO2012/0852 are dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
Helen Shurven
Member
SCHEDULE – DETERMINATION

Tenement	Government Party Notification	Objection Application Lodged	Objection Application No.	Grantee Party	Native Title Party & Application No.	Dates Directions Made	Dismissal Date
P08/649	22/06/2012	20/07/2012	WO2012/0773	GTI Resources Ltd	Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation – WCD2008/003	05/07/2013	14/08/2013
E08/2381	27/07/2012	15/08/2012	WO2012/0852	GTI Resources Ltd	Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation – WCD2008/003	05/07/2013	14/08/2013

Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation, the traditional owner of land in Western Australia, lodged an objection to the proposed grant of exploration and prospecting permits by GTI Resources Ltd. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court, where the primary concern was whether the corporation's objections to the grants were valid under the Native Title Act 1993. The court was tasked with determining whether the objections were lodged in compliance with the Act, and if the corporation had a valid basis for opposing the permits.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the procedural correctness of the objection process. The court had to examine whether the Aboriginal corporation adhered to the statutory requirements for lodging objections under the Act, and whether their objections were based on valid native title claims. The corporation argued that the proposed exploration activities would infringe upon their native title rights and that the permits should not be granted without their consent. The company, on the other hand, contended that the objections were not properly lodged and thus invalid.

In its decision, the court found that the corporation's objections were not compliant with the procedural requirements of the Native Title Act. The court noted that the corporation had failed to adhere to the specific directions given by the Registrar, which were necessary for the proper lodging of objections. As a result, the objections were dismissed, and the proposed exploration permits were granted. The court concluded that the corporation's failure to comply with the directions rendered their objections invalid, and therefore, the permits could proceed without further objection.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established