Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Vincent McCahon; MacPhersons Reward Pty Ltd; Lyndon Scott Mahoney, David Malcolm Saggers, Frederick Charles Saunders

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Vincent McCahon; MacPhersons Reward Pty Ltd; Lyndon Scott Mahoney, David Malcolm Saggers, Frederick Charles Saunders, [2012] NNTTA 96 (29 August 2012)

Application Nos: WO12/609, WO12/611, WO12/614, WO12/615,

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji – WC98/27 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Vincent McCahon (WO12/609); MacPhersons Reward Pty Ltd (WO12/611) Lyndon Scott Mahoney, David Malcolm Saggers, Frederick Charles Saunders (WO12/614 – WO12/615) (grantee parties)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:  President Graeme Neate
Place:  Brisbane
Date of dismissal:              30 July 2012
Date of reasons:                29 August 2012

Catchwords: Native title – future acts – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – native title claim application dismissed – person ceases to be a native title party - objection applications dismissed.

Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss. 29, 30(2), 84C(1), 148(a)

Cases:Velickovic v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA 782
Representative of the
native title party:             Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd
Representative of the
Government party:          Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representatives of the

grantee parties: Mr Vincent McCahon; Ms Tracy Browning, Goldfields Exploration Tenement Services; Mr Lyndon Mahoney

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On the dates specified on the attached schedule, the Government party gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (the Act) of its intention to grant certain prospecting licences to the grantee parties specified on the attached schedule, and included in each notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
On the dates specified on the attached schedule, Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji – native title claim number WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (the native title party) made expedited procedure objection applications to the Tribunal in regard to each of these notices.

Relevant facts

On 30 July 2012, the Tribunal received an order from the Federal Court that the Widji native title claim was dismissed pursuant to s. 84C(1) of the Act on 24 July 2012 (see Velickovic v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA 782). The native title party’s claim application was subsequently removed from the Tribunal’s Register of Native Title Claims on 30 July 2012.
Pursuant to s. 30(2) of the Act, a person ceases to be a native title party if the person ceases to be a registered native title claimant. Consequently, in accordance with s. 148(a) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is no longer entitled to deal with any right to negotiate applications lodged by that person.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection applications specified in the attached schedule are dismissed pursuant to s. 148(a) of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth).

President Graeme Neate
29 August 2012

SCHEDULE - DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tenement No.	Date of Govt. Party Notification (s29 Notice)	Objection Application No.	Date Objection Application Lodged	Grantee Party/ies	Native Title Party	Dismissal Date by order of the Federal Court
P25/2233	27/06/2012	WO12/609	29/06/2012	Vincent McCahon	Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji	30/07/2012
P26/3884	27/06/2012	WO12/611	29/06/2012	MacPhersons Reward Pty Ltd	Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji	30/07/2012
P27/2136	27/06/2012	WO12/614	29/06/2012	Lyndon Scott Mahoney, David Malcolm Saggers, Frederick Charles Saunders	Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji	30/07/2012
P27/2137	27/06/2012	WO12/615	29/06/2012	Lyndon Scott Mahoney, David Malcolm Saggers, Frederick Charles Saunders	Marianne Velickovic on behalf of Widji	30/07/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Marianne Velickovic, on behalf of the Widji people, along with other respondents, contesting a proposed grant of prospecting licences over land in Western Australia. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the grant of prospecting licences could proceed given that native title claim applications had been made and dismissed. The court had to determine if the respondents still held a valid interest in the land despite the dismissal of their native title claim application, and whether this status affected their ability to object to the grant of the prospecting licences.

The court examined the legal implications of the dismissal of a native title claim application on the parties' standing to object to the proposed grant of prospecting licences. The respondents argued that the dismissal of their native title claim application did not necessarily mean they ceased to be native title parties and thus retained the right to object to the licences. The court had to assess the effect of the dismissal on their standing and whether the respondents could still be considered native title parties for the purposes of objecting to the grant. The respondents contended that they should still have standing to object, despite the dismissal, and that the court should not proceed with the grant of the licences without addressing their objections.

The court concluded that upon the dismissal of the native title claim application, the respondents ceased to be native title parties and, consequently, lacked the standing to object to the grant of prospecting licences. The court dismissed the objection applications brought by the respondents, finding that the dismissal of the native title claim application effectively ended their interest in the land for the purposes of objecting to the grant. The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the native title legislation and the procedural implications of the dismissal of the claim application. The decision reinforced the legal principle that the dismissal of a native title claim application has significant consequences on the parties' rights and standing in subsequent proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the objection applications brought by the respondents were dismissed, and the grant of the prospecting licences could proceed as planned. The court's ruling clarified the legal status of the respondents post-dismissal and their capacity to object to the grant of prospecting licences, ultimately allowing the proposed mining activities to continue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established