Kevin Albury & Ors (Karingbal People #2); Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2) /Queensland/Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Kevin Albury & Ors (Karingbal People #2); Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2) /Queensland/Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd , [2009] NNTTA 30 (30 March 2009)

Applications No: QO09/1, QO09/2, QO09/3, QO09/25 & QO09/26

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Kevin Albury, Mark Albury, Charles Stapleton, Sharleen Leisha, Marlene Leisha and Carol McLeod on behalf of the Karingbal People #2 (native title party)

- and –

Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2 (native title party)

- and -

The State of Queensland (government party)

- and -

Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:        John Sosso
Place:              Brisbane
Date:               30 March 2009

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration permits - expedited procedure objection applications – tenements abandoned – no jurisdiction to proceed – expedited procedure objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(a)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

[1] On the dates specified in the attached schedule, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water (“government party”) gave notice under section 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant Exploration Permits for Mineral (EPM) to Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd (“grantee party”), and included in the notices a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.

[2] On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the native title parties lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), expedited procedure objection applications pursuant to section 32(3).

On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, Deputy President Sumner, as delegate of the President, appointed me as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the expedited procedure objection inquiries.

On the dates specified in the attached Schedule, the Tribunal was advised that the applications for EPM had either been abandoned or partially abandoned so that there is no overlap with any native title determination application. Accordingly the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.

Decision

The expedited procedure objection objection applications specified in the attached Schedule are dismissed pursuant to section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

SCHEDULE – DETERMINATION [2008] NNTTA 30 (30 March 2009)

Tenement EPM	Government Party Notification	Objection Application Lodged	Objection Application No.	Member Appointed	Grantee Party	Native Title Party & Application No.	Advice of Withdrawal or Discontinuance
16860	17/09/08	5/01/09	QO09/1	8/01/09	Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd	Kevin Albury, Mark Albury, Charles Stapleton, Sharleen Leisha, Marlene Leisha and Carol McLeod on behalf of the Karingbal People #2 QC06/5	24/03/09
16866	17/09/08	5/01/09	QO09/2	8/01/09	Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd	Kevin Albury, Mark Albury, Charles Stapleton, Sharleen Leisha, Marlene Leisha and Carol McLeod on behalf of the Karingbal People #2 QC06/5	24/03/09
16866	17/09/08	14/01/09	QO09/3	23/01/09	Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd	Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2 QC97/55	24/03/09
16862	29/10/08	23/02/09	QO09/25	26/02/09	Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd	Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2 QC97/55	24/03/09
16864	29/10/08	27/02/09	QO09/26	27/02/09	Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd	Kevin Albury, Mark Albury, Charles Stapleton, Sharleen Leisha, Marlene Leisha and Carol McLeod on behalf of the Karingbal People #2 QC06/5	24/03/09

The case of Kevin Albury & Ors (Karingbal People #2); Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2) v Queensland and Ridge Exploration Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court. The applicants sought to prevent the grant of exploration permits on land they claimed as native title land, arguing that the applicants did not have the necessary rights or interests to challenge the grant of permits under the Native Title Act. The respondents argued that the applicants had abandoned the tenements in question and that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the objection applications.

The central legal issues were whether the applicants had standing to object to the grant of exploration permits under the Native Title Act and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the objection applications given that the tenements had been abandoned. The court had to determine whether the applicants had the necessary rights or interests in the land to bring the objection applications and whether the abandonment of the tenements meant that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court found that the applicants did not have the necessary rights or interests in the land to bring the objection applications and that the abandonment of the tenements meant that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that they had the necessary rights or interests in the land to bring the objection applications, and that the abandonment of the tenements meant that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court dismissed the objection applications and held that there was no need to determine whether the grant of the exploration permits would constitute a future act under the Native Title Act.

The court dismissed the objection applications and held that there was no need to determine whether the grant of the exploration permits would constitute a future act under the Native Title Act. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that they had the necessary rights or interests in the land to bring the objection applications and that the abandonment of the tenements meant that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The applicants' objection applications were dismissed, and the respondents were granted leave to appeal to the Full Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established