Dora Sharpe & Ors on Behalf of Gooniyandi Combined #2/Western Australia/Stansmore Resources Pty Ltd

wNATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Dora Sharpe & Ors on behalf of Gooniyandi Combined #2/Western Australia/Stansmore Resources Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 63 (12 June 2012)

Application No: WO11/665

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

-and-

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

Dora Sharpe & Ors on behalf of Gooniyandi Combined #2 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (government party)

-and-

Stansmore Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  John Sosso
Place:  Brisbane
Date of dismissal:               5 June 2012
Date of reasons:                 12 June 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure within a reasonable time to proceed with objection application – failure to comply with directions – 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: Ms Ania Maszkowski, Kimberley Land Council

Government party: Mr Matthew Smith, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Grantee party: Mr Bill Richmond

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 9 February 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 E80/4504 (“the proposed tenement”) to Stansmore Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 8 June 2011, Dora Sharpe & Ors on behalf of Gooniyandi Combined #2 (“the native title party”) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to E80/4504.

Relevant facts

At the adjourned status conference for expedited procedure objection application WO11/665 on 29 February 2012, the native title party representative advised that their instructions were not to include the proposed tenement in any existing agreement. The grantee party was unwilling to enter into a new agreement and all parties agreed to proceed to inquiry. Directions were made requiring 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 30 April 2012.
On 11 May 2012 the Directions were amended following a request from the native title party seeking further time to finalise their evidence material. The native title party was then required to lodge contentions to the Tribunal and all other parties on or before 21 May 2012.
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.
On 24 May 2012 the government party requested via email 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 native title party and the grantee party failed to provide a response.
As the native title party had not complied with the Directions of the Tribunal nor made any contact with the Tribunal to apply for further time to comply, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application on 5 June 2012 in accordance with the submissions of the government party.
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

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/665 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

The case involved Dora Sharpe and others on behalf of the Gooniyandi Combined #2/Western Australia/Stansmore Resources Pty Ltd, who sought to object to the grant of an exploration licence over native title land. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicants argued against the proposed grant of the licence under the Native Title Act 1993. The central issue for the court was whether the applicants had failed to proceed with their objection application within a reasonable time, and if they had failed to comply with the court's directions.

The court examined whether the applicants had acted with the necessary promptness in initiating and pursuing their objection to the grant of the exploration licence. Additionally, the court assessed whether the applicants had complied with specific directions given to them during the proceedings. The applicants' failure to proceed within a reasonable time and their non-compliance with court directions were critical in determining the outcome of the case.

In its judgment, the court found that the applicants had indeed failed to proceed with their objection application within a reasonable time and had not complied with the directions given to them. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection application. The reasoning was based on the applicants' inaction and their disregard for the court's procedural requirements. The court concluded that these failures justified the dismissal of the objection, thus allowing the grant of the exploration licence to proceed.

The final orders of the court dismissed the objection application and permitted the grant of the exploration licence to go ahead. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and complying with judicial directions in native title disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established