Glenn Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River/Western Australia/Derek Lyle & William Travis

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Glenn Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River/Western Australia/Derek Lyle & William Travis, [2007] NNTTA 53 (18 June 2007)

Application No: WO07/74

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

- and -

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

Glenn Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River (WC00/1) (native title party)

- and -

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

- and -

Derek Lyle and William Travis (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:                  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date:  18 June 2007

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – excision of tenement from native title claim – tenement granted – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – objection application dismissed

Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)
Cases:David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner
Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 11 October 2006, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E70/2929 to Derek Lyle and William Travis (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 5 February 2007, Glenn Councillor & Others on behalf of Hutt River (WC00/1 – registered from 7 July 2007) (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.
On 1 June 2007, the Government party advised the Tribunal that exploration licence E70/2929 was granted on 7 May 2007 with the exclusion of all land able to be claimed within Native Title Claim WC00/1.

Relevant Facts

The Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry once a grant has been made (David Daniel & Ors/Western Australia/Raymond J T Butler and Stanley A MacDonald, NNTT WO99/197, [2000] NNTTA 294 (11 August 2000), Hon C J Sumner). Further, in this case the grant was not a future act as native title was not affected (Gregory and Kelvin Garlett/Western Australia/Sipa Exploration NL, NNTT WO97/220, [1997] NNTTA 167 (27 October 1997), Hon C J Sumner).

Decision

The expedited procedure objection application is dismissed pursuant to s 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
18 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicants, Glenn Councillor and others, sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence over land in Western Australia. The dispute involved the potential impact of this grant on native title rights held by the applicants. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the objection application brought forth by the applicants.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain the objection application, particularly given that the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provided an expedited procedure for such objections. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the excision of the tenement from the native title claim was lawful and if the grant of the tenement had indeed occurred. The court's role was to interpret the legislative framework governing native title and the procedure for objecting to the grant of exploration licences.

The court found that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the objection application as the proposed grant of the exploration licence had already been completed by the time the objection was lodged. The court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the objection once the tenement had been granted. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed. The court relied on the statutory framework which outlined the expedited procedure for objections and concluded that the timing of the objection was critical. The applicants' argument that the excision of the tenement from the native title claim was unlawful was not addressed due to the jurisdictional issue.

As a result, the court dismissed the objection application and found that no further orders were necessary. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines and procedures when objecting to the grant of exploration licences under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established