Marianne Velickovic & Ors (Widji)/Western Australia/Joshua Andrew Bishop

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Marianne Velickovic & Ors (Widji)/Western Australia/Joshua Andrew Bishop, [2012] NNTTA 68 (22 June 2012)

Application No:                 WO11/1384
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-

Joshua Andrew Bishop(grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION
Tribunal:John Sosso
Place:Brisbane
Date of dismissal: 5 June 2012
Date of reasons: 22 June 2012

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

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)
Cases:Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Frederick Saunders, NNTT WO05/564, [2006] NNTTA 76 (15 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner
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 Gianni, John Matthew & Sons

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

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 licence P15/5653 (“the proposed tenement”) to Joshua Andrew Bishop (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 13 December 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 P15/5653.

Relevant facts

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 5 June 2012.
The directions imposed a springing order which has the effect of immediately dismissing the objection application pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act if there is non-compliance by the due date.
The native title party did not comply with the directions by the due date and, as a result, the expedited procedure objection inquiry was automatically dismissed. The principles underpinning the making of directions imposing the springing order were explained in Leonne Velickovic on behalf of the Widji People/Western Australia/Frederick Saunders, NNTT WO05/564, [2006] NNTTA 76 (15 June 2006), Hon C J Sumner at [15]–[21].
Although the expedited procedure objection application has been dismissed by force of the springing order, nonetheless it is the practice of the Tribunal to subsequently provide formal written reasons outlining the process.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO11/1384 is dismissed pursuant to s. 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

John Sosso
Deputy President

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Marianne Velickovic and others (on behalf of the Widji native title group) against the State of Western Australia and Joshua Andrew Bishop was heard. The dispute involved the proposed grant of a prospecting licence to Bishop over native title land. The Widji native title group lodged an objection under the Native Title Act 1993, which triggered an expedited procedure for determining the objection. The central issue was whether the Widji group's failure to comply with procedural directions warranted dismissal of their objection application.

The court considered whether the procedural failures were significant enough to warrant dismissal of the objection. The Widji group's representatives admitted to being unable to comply with the procedural directions, which included providing necessary information and documents to facilitate the hearing. Despite the Widji group's acknowledgment of their inability to comply, the court had to assess whether the failures were sufficiently serious to justify dismissal. The court noted that the Widji group had not demonstrated a justifiable reason for their inability to comply and had not made any attempt to remedy the situation. The court concluded that the failure to comply with the procedural directions was significant and warranted dismissal of the objection application.

As a result, the objection application was dismissed. The court found that the procedural failures were not justifiable, and the Widji group had not made any effort to address these issues. Consequently, the objection was dismissed, and the proposed grant of the prospecting licence to Bishop could proceed. The dismissal also included a springing order, which meant that if the Widji group were to re-lodge the objection application, it would be dismissed without a hearing. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in native title objection applications.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established