Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga/Western Australia/Bronze View Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Raisama Pty Ltd, [2009] NNTTA 123 (8 October 2009)

Application No: WO09/81

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

-and-

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

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation – WC99/45 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Raisama Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:              1 October 2009

Date of reasons: 8 October 20009

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases: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
Representative of the
native title party:               Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Representatives of the       Ms Claire Malavaux, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Government party:            Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Representative of the
grantee party  Mr Kevin Connell, Austwide Mining Title Management

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 14 January 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/1889 to Raisama Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 10 February 2009, the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal in relation to the proposed licence.

Relevant facts

The Tribunal made directions on 10 March 2009 requiring all parties to produce contentions and evidence for the conduct of the inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure was attracted. The native title party was to provide a statement of contentions, documentary evidence and witness statements verified where possible by affidavits on or before 14 September 2009. The directions contain a statement that the objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.
At the preliminary conference on 24 March 2009 the grantee party representative, Mr Kevin Connell, requested the matter proceed to inquiry. The Government party and grantee party have complied with directions. No submissions have been received from the native title party.
At the listing hearing on 1 October 2009, the Government party sought dismissal of the objection pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with a direction of the Tribunal by the native title party. The representative for the native title party, Mr Jerome Frewen, requested an eight week extension to directions to allow additional time to comply as the native title party had been dealing with a large number of matters over the last eight months. The request was not supported by the Government and grantee parties. On 1 October 2009, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application. I find that the native title party has failed to comply with a direction of the Tribunal and has provided no satisfactory explanation for its failure. In making the decision to dismiss this application for non-compliance, I adopt the Tribunal’s findings 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.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO09/81 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
1 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Limpet Giggles and others, on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga, sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over land in Western Australia, under the Native Title Act. The respondents, Western Australia and Bronze View Pty Ltd, applied for the dismissal of the objection on the basis that the applicants had failed to comply with directions given by the Registrar to file an amended objection application. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' failure to comply with the Registrar's directions was sufficient grounds to dismiss the objection application. The applicants argued that they had provided substantial information and that the dismissal would deny them their right to a fair hearing. The respondents contended that the applicants' non-compliance with the Registrar's directions warranted the dismissal of the objection application as it obstructed the court's ability to efficiently manage the case.

The court held that the applicants' non-compliance with the Registrar's directions was a significant factor in determining whether to dismiss the objection application. While the court recognised the importance of ensuring that parties have an opportunity to be heard, it also emphasised the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements. The court found that the applicants' failure to file the amended objection application despite repeated opportunities to do so, and the lack of substantial justification for this failure, warranted the dismissal of the objection application. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection, finding that it was in the interests of justice to do so given the applicants' persistent non-compliance with the court's procedural requirements.

The court ordered that the objection application be dismissed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title matters, particularly in the context of expedited procedures. The dismissal of the objection application reflected the court's commitment to ensuring that cases are managed efficiently while also acknowledging the need to balance procedural fairness with the expeditious resolution of disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established