Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd

[2012] NNTTA 60

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd, [2012] NNTTA 60 (12 June 2012)

Application No:                 WO12/40

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

-and-

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

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

-and-

The State of Western Australia   (government party)

-and-

Puck Resources Pty Ltd(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:John Sosso

Place:Brisbane

Date of dismissal:              5 June 2012

Date of reasons:                 12 June 2012

Catchwords:  Native title – future act – proposed grant of prospecting licence – expedited procedure objection application – failure to comply with directions – springing order  – expedited procedure objection application 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:                   Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

1. On 11 January 2012, 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 licence P26/3876 to Puck Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

2. On 23 January 2012, Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji  – Native Title Claim No WC98/27 (“the native title party”) registered from 15 June 1998, lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the Tribunal in relation to P26/3876.

Relevant facts

1. The Tribunal made Directions on 7 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 3 September 2012.

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

3. At the adjourned preliminary conference on 24 April 2012 the grantee party requested to proceed to inquiry on the basis that the conditions of the native title party’s agreement were unacceptable. The government party applied for the Directions to be brought forward. On 2 May 2012 the Tribunal amended the Directions requiring the native title party to provide contentions and evidence on or before 5 June 2012. 

4. 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 5 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

1. Expedited procedure objection application WO12/40 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President