Dudley Wabbie & Ors on behalf of the Palyku People (WC99/16)/Western Australia/Timothy Cam Ball

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Dudley Wabbie & Ors on behalf of the Palyku People (WC99/16)/Western Australia/Timothy Cam Ball, [2000] NNTTA 36 (11 February 2000)

Application: WO99/120

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER of objections to inclusion in an expedited procedure

FUTURE ACT CONSENT DETERMINATION

Dudley Wabbie & Ors on behalf of the Palyku People (WC99/16)
(Native Title Party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia
(Government party)

- and -

Timothy Cam Ball
(Grantee Party)

DETERMINATION

By consent the determination of the Tribunal is that the grant of Prospecting Licence 45/2433S to Timothy Cam Ball is not an act attracting the expedited procedure.

The Hon. C.J. Sumner
Member
11 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dudley Wabbie, on behalf of the Palyku people, along with several other applicants, contested the grant of a prospecting licence to Timothy Cam Ball within the State of Western Australia. The dispute was heard by the National Native Title Tribunal, which was required to decide whether the grant of the prospecting licence constituted an act attracting the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act 1993. The Palyku people, as native title holders, argued that the grant of the prospecting licence interfered with their native title rights and therefore should be subject to the expedited procedure. Conversely, the State of Western Australia and the grantee, Timothy Cam Ball, contended that the grant did not attract the expedited procedure and should proceed as normal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included the interpretation of the term "act" as it pertains to the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act, and whether the grant of a prospecting licence constitutes such an act. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to consider whether the grant of the prospecting licence interfered with the native title rights of the Palyku people, and if so, whether it should be subject to the expedited procedure. The Tribunal also had to examine the implications of the consent determination and how it affected the parties' obligations under the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the grant of the prospecting licence to Timothy Cam Ball did not constitute an act attracting the expedited procedure. The determination was reached by consent, and the parties agreed that the grant did not interfere with the native title rights of the Palyku people to the extent that it necessitated the expedited procedure. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of the consent determination in streamlining the process and avoiding unnecessary delays. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the parties' agreement that the grant did not interfere with the native title rights to a significant extent.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the grant of Prospecting Licence 45/2433S to Timothy Cam Ball was not an act attracting the expedited procedure, as agreed by the parties. The Tribunal's decision was made by consent and reflected the parties' understanding of their obligations under the Native Title Act. This determination allowed the grant to proceed without the need for the expedited procedure, streamlining the process and respecting the rights of the Palyku people as native title holders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established