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

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga/Western Australia/Inosite Ltd [2012] NNTTA 140 (18 December 2012)

Applications No: WO2012/0238

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-

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 7 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 08/2357 (‘the proposed tenement’) to 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 WO12/238 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 WO12/238 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 5 December 2012, the grantee party requested 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 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 WO12/238 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Member Daniel O’Dea

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Limpet Giggles and Others on behalf of the Gobawarrah Minduarra Yinhawanga versus Western Australia and Inosite Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether an expedited procedure objection application should be dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with court directions. The applicants, who are native title parties, sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title area under the Native Title Act 1993. They argued that the proposed exploration activities would irreversibly affect their native title rights and interests. The respondents, the State of Western Australia and Inosite Ltd, the exploration licence applicant, argued that the objection application should be dismissed due to the applicants' non-compliance with directions issued by the court.

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 needed to balance the need for procedural fairness and adherence to court directions against the applicants' rights to object to activities that might affect their native title rights. The court also had to consider the impact of the non-compliance on the expedited procedure, which is designed to provide a timely resolution of disputes over future acts affecting native title.

The court found that the applicants had failed to comply with several directions, including providing an updated list of witnesses and a draft statement of reasons. The court held that the failure to comply with these directions was a serious matter, as it undermined the integrity of the court process and potentially prejudiced the respondents. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court directions and the consequences of failing to do so. Despite acknowledging the applicants' concerns about the proposed exploration activities, the court concluded that the non-compliance warranted the dismissal of the objection application. The court also noted that the applicants could still pursue other legal avenues to address their concerns about the exploration activities.

The final orders of the court were that the objection application be dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with the court's directions. The court emphasised that the dismissal was not a reflection on the merits of the applicants' case but rather a consequence of their non-compliance with the procedural requirements. The court also noted that the dismissal did not prevent the applicants from pursuing other legal remedies to address their concerns about the exploration activities.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established