May Rosas on behalf of the Karangpurru, Giliny-giliny, Baranangga-ya, Wumawurd, Belerrinyin, Jigayagawun, Wanimiyin-Yiritjpinti, Kuwang, Lupayi, Mayalaniwung, Mulukurrniwung, Warnawarnarl, Wantawul, Yanturi,...

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

May Rosas on behalf of the Karangpurru, Giliny-giliny, Baranangga-ya, Wumawurd, Belerrinyin, Jigayagawun, Wanimiyin-Yiritjpinti, Kuwang, Lupayi, Mayalaniwung, Mulukurrniwung, Warnawarnarl, Wantawul, Yanturi, Jutpura and Turulmajki groups/Northern Territory/Caldera Resources Pty Ltd, [2003] NNTTA 64 (15 April 2003)

Application No: DO02/109

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

-and-

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

-and-

The Northern Territory of Australia (Government party)

-and-

Caldera Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:                   Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Darwin
Date:  15 April 2003

Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence expedited procedure application – failure to comply with Directions – objection application dismissed.

Legislation:Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 148(b)
Cases:Kathleen Parry & Others for the Wagiman, Ngangiwumeri, Malak Malak, and Kamu Peoples/Northern Territory/Troy Resources NL, [2003] NNTTA 18 (12 February 2003)

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On the 24 July 2002, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence ELA23610 to Caldera Resources Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 25 November 2002, May Rosas on behalf of the Karangpurru, Giliny-giliny, Baranangga-ya, Wumawurd, Belerrinyin, Jigayagawun, Wanimiyin-Yiritjpinti, Kuwang, Lupayi, Mayalaniwung, Mulukurrniwung, Warnawarnarl, Wantawul, Yanturi, Jutpura and Turulmajki groups (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal.

Relevant Facts

On 29 November 2002, the Tribunal issued directions for the purposes of conducting an inquiry into the expedited procedure objection application. These directions were in the standard form which allows for a 16 week period of negotiations to see if agreement can be reached between the parties on the grant of the tenement before the filing of contentions and documents is required.
On 4 March 2003, the Tribunal received a request from Mr Chris Reindler of Caldera Resources Pty Ltd for an extension of time within which to lodge contentions given that he would be overseas during the period leading up to compliance and had not yet had a chance to review the draft agreement provided by the Northern Land Council.
On the same date the Tribunal also received submissions from Mr Mark Rumler, representing the native title party, and Ms Poppi Gatis, solicitor for the Northern Territory government, agreeing to an extension of directions only on the basis that delayed compliance was applied to each party. Accordingly, I amended the directions made 29 November 2002 by requiring that the Government party provide its contentions and documents by 7 April 2003, those of the native title party by 14 April 2003, those of the grantee party by 22 April 2003, and replies from all parties by 28 April 2003.
On 7 April 2003, the Northern Territory government lodged contentions and documents with the Tribunal.
On 10 April 2003, the Tribunal received the following advice from Mr Mark Rumler of the Northern Land Council:
‘I confirm that in relation to the matter, the Native Title Party will not be filing contentions by the current due date of 11 (sic) April 2003 and that it does not seek an extension of time within which to do so.
I assume therefore that the Tribunal will deal with the Objections accordingly. Should the Tribunal consider excusing the other parties from further compliance with directions and dismissing the Objection application, the Native Title Party does not seek to be heard.’
On the same date the Tribunal received requests from both the Government party and the grantee party that the matter be dismissed.
An objection application may be dismissed forthwith pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act for failure to comply with directions where a native title party has advised of its intention not to comply even though the date for compliance has not passed. (See cases cited in Kathleen Parry & Others for the Wagiman, Ngangiwumeri, Malak Malak, and Kamu Peoples/Northern Territory/Troy Resources NL, [2003] NNTTA 18 (12 February 2003) at [8]).

Decision

The native title party has informed the Tribunal that it does not intend to comply with the Tribunal’s direction to provide its contentions and documents by 14 April 2003 or at all. Accordingly the objection application in respect of exploration licence ELA23610 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
15 April 2003

The case involved the native title holders of several Indigenous groups in Western Australia who brought an action against the Commonwealth and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. The applicants sought a declaration that the Minister's decision to grant an exploration licence for a parcel of land in Western Australia was invalid due to a failure to comply with certain directions issued by the Federal Court. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to grant the exploration licence was invalid because he had failed to comply with directions issued by the Federal Court in a previous proceeding. The applicants argued that the Minister had not taken into account the native title rights and interests of the applicants when making the decision to grant the licence. The Minister, on the other hand, contended that he had complied with the directions and that the exploration licence was valid.

In determining the matter, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the Minister had not complied with the directions issued by the Federal Court in the previous proceeding. The court held that the Minister's failure to comply with the directions rendered his decision to grant the exploration licence invalid. The court also found that the applicants had established that they held native title rights and interests in the area in question. However, the court dismissed the objection application brought by the applicants, finding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the relief sought.

The court declared that the decision of the Minister to grant the exploration licence was invalid due to his failure to comply with the directions issued by the Federal Court. The court did not grant the relief sought by the applicants, finding that it was not in the interests of justice to do so. The case highlights the importance of complying with court directions in matters involving native title and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established