Dorothy Bandy & Others (WC96/98)/Western Australia/Milan Mirkovic

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Dorothy Bandy & Others (WC96/98)/Western Australia/Milan Mirkovic, [2000] NNTTA 289 (8 August 2000)

Application No: WO99/249

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

- and -

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

Dorothy Bandy & Others (WC96/98) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Milan Mirkovic (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:       Ms Jennifer Stuckey-Clarke
Place:             Perth
Date:              8 August 2000

Catchwords: Native Title – future act – expedited procedure objection application – proposed grant of an exploration licence – application for exploration licence withdrawn – objection application dismissed.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 59/936 to Milan Mirkovic (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

On 8 September 1999, Dorothy Bandy & Others (WC96/98)(`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 20^th July 2000, the exploration licence application made by Milan Mirkovic 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).

Ms Jennifer Stuckey-Clarke
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dorothy Bandy & Others (WC96/98) against Western Australia and Milan Mirkovic, the dispute centred on an objection to a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The Native Title Tribunal was tasked with deciding whether the objection application should proceed under an expedited procedure. The application for the exploration licence was subsequently withdrawn, which altered the context of the objection. The court was required to consider the procedural aspects of the objection application in light of the withdrawal of the exploration licence application.

The legal issues before the court included whether the objection application could proceed under the expedited procedure and whether the withdrawal of the exploration licence application had any bearing on the objection application. The court also needed to determine the appropriate procedural steps to take given the changed circumstances. The central issue was whether the tribunal had the authority to continue with the objection application under the expedited procedure despite the withdrawal of the exploration licence application.

The court determined that the objection application could not proceed under the expedited procedure. The withdrawal of the exploration licence application meant that the conditions under which the objection application was initially considered no longer existed. As a result, the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to continue with the objection under the expedited procedure. The court held that the procedural framework did not support the continuation of the objection application in its original form. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the objection application brought by Dorothy Bandy & Others was dismissed. The tribunal was instructed that it could not proceed with the objection under the expedited procedure due to the withdrawal of the exploration licence application. This decision highlighted the importance of procedural integrity and the need for the tribunal to adhere to the conditions under which an application was initially considered.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established