Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga/Western Australia/Alan Sanderson & Inosite Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga/Western Australia/Alan Sanderson & Inosite Ltd [2012] NNTTA 141 (18 December 2012)

Applications No: WO2012/0240

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

-and-

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

Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of
Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Alan Sanderson & Inosite Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Daniel O’Dea
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            18 December 2012
Date of reasons:              18 December 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence - expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – expedited procedure 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 Julie Walker, Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga

Government party: Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Grantee party Ms Claire Hornsby/Ms April French, Austwide Mining Title Management Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 21 March 2012, the State of Western Australia (‘the Government party’) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence 08/2355 (‘the proposed tenement’) to Alan Sanderson and Inosite Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 24 March 2012, Limpet Giggles and Others of behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga (‘the native title party’) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the National Native Title Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) in relation to the notice about the proposed tenement.

Relevant facts

At the first preliminary conference for expedited procedure objection application WO12/240 on 8 May 2012, the grantee party advised that the proposed tenement had a one hundred percent overlap with another native title party and they would be negotiating with them in regards to an agreement.
On 19 June 2012, during an adjourned preliminary conference, the grantee party requested that expedited procedure objection application WO12/240 proceed to inquiry. All parties confirmed that they were aware of compliance dates and did not request any extensions.
On 29 October 2012, the Government party complied. By 5 November 2012, the native title party had not complied and had not contacted the Tribunal to request an extension.
On 29 November 2012, the grantee party submitted a letter to all parties requesting that, due to the fact that the native title party had not provided contentions, affidavits and any other documentary evidence in accordance with Tribunal Directions, the objection be dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Act. The Government party supported this request. The native title party did not respond to the letter or the Tribunal’s request for comments.
As the native title party failed to proceed with the objection application within a reasonable time and did not comply with the Directions of the Tribunal, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application on 18 December 2012.

In making the decision to dismiss this application for non-compliance, I adopt the approach taken by the Tribunal 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, where the native title party had failed within a reasonable time to proceed with the application and had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Directions, having submitted no contentions or documentary evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of the failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO12/240 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Member Daniel O’Dea

The case involved Limpet Giggles and others, representing the Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga, who brought a claim against Western Australia and Alan Sanderson and Inosite Ltd in relation to a proposed grant of an exploration licence. The dispute centred on the objections raised under the Native Title Act 1993, specifically regarding the expedited procedure for objections. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the objections and the consequences of the applicants' failure to comply with procedural directions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The court had to assess whether the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to support their objections to the proposed exploration licence and whether the non-compliance with procedural requirements should result in the dismissal of their objection application. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicants had acted in good faith and whether there were any mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account.

In determining the outcome, the court emphasised the importance of procedural compliance in native title objection applications. The court found that the applicants had failed to provide the necessary evidence to support their objections and had not complied with the court's directions. Despite the applicants' arguments regarding the merits of their case, the court held that their failure to comply with procedural requirements was a significant factor in dismissing the objection application. The court concluded that the applicants' non-compliance with directions, combined with the lack of sufficient evidence, justified the dismissal of their objection to the proposed exploration licence.

The court dismissed the objection application and noted that the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions and provide adequate evidence was a substantial reason for the dismissal. The court did not grant the applicants' objections and upheld the proposed grant of the exploration licence. The final orders reflected the court's decision to dismiss the objection application and to allow the exploration licence to proceed as planned.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established