Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Peter Ronald Gibson

[2012] NNTTA 53

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Peter Ronald Gibson, [2012] NNTTA 53 (23 May 2012)

Applications No:                WO11/1388, WO11/1389, WO11/1390, WO11/1391

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into expedited procedure objection applications

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji            (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia   (government party)

-and-

Peter Ronald Gibson(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Tribunal:John Sosso

Place:Brisbane

Date of dismissal:              21 May 2012

Date of reasons:                23 May 2012

Catchwords:  Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licences – expedited procedure objection applications – failure to comply with directions – springing order  – expedited procedure objection applications dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)

Cases:Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103

Representatives:

Native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

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

Grantee party:                   Mr Peter Ronald Gibson

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 14 December 2011, the State of Western Australia (“the government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant prospecting licences P25/2222, P25/2223, P25/2224 and P27/2109 to Peter Ronald Gibson (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.

2. On 13 December 2011, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji – Native Title Claim No WC98/27, registered from 15 June 1998 (the native title party) lodged expedited procedure objection applications with the Tribunal in relation to P25/2222 (WO11/1388), P25/2223 (WO11/1389), P25/2224 (WO11/1390) and P27/2109 (WO11/1391).

Relevant facts

1. The Tribunal made Directions on 27 February 2012 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 21 May 2012. 

2. The Directions imposed a springing order which had the effect of immediately dismissing the objection applications pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there was non-compliance by the due date. 

3. The principles governing the making of “springing” or  “guillotine” Directions were explained in Dixon v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 103. I adopt those principles for the purpose of this decision.

1. The Springing Direction, having required the native title party to provide contentions by close of business on 21 May 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

1. Expedited procedure objection applications WO11/1388, WO11/1389, WO11/1390 and WO11/1391 are dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President