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

[2012] NNTTA 64

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors on behalf of Widji/Western Australia/Puck Resources Pty Ltd,
[2012] NNTTA 64 (12 June 2012)

Application No:                 WO11/1215

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

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into 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:              11 June 2012

Date of reasons:                 12 June 2012

Catchwords:  Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration 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 19 October 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 exploration licence E27/465 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 27 October 2011, 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 E27/465.

Relevant facts

1. The Tribunal made Directions on 15 November 2011 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 11 June 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. 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.

4. The Springing Direction, having required the native title party to provide contentions by close of business on 11 June 2012, was activated at that time by the failure to comply.

Decision

1. Expedited procedure objection application WO11/1215 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President