Russell Tatow and Ors (Iman People #2)/Queensland/Mining Investments One Pty Ltd, Aard Metals Limited

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Russell Tatow & Ors (Iman People #2)/Queensland/Mining Investments One Pty Ltd, Aard Metals Limited, [2011] NNTTA 211 (16 December 2011)
Applications No: QO10/198, QO11/94

IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2
  (native title party)
- and -
The State of Queensland   (government party)
- and -
Grantee Parties as listed in the attached schedule            (grantee parties)
DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
Tribunal:                    John Sosso
Place:                         Brisbane
Date:  16 December 2011
Catchwords:              Native title – future acts – proposed grant of exploration permits - expedited procedure objection applications – government party withdraws assertion of expedited procedure – no jurisdiction to proceed – expedited procedure objection applications dismissed.
Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss. 29, 32, 148(a).

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS
[1] On the dates listed in the attached schedule, the State of Queensland (“government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant an Exploration Permit for Coal and an Exploration Permit for Mineral respectively to the grantee parties listed in the attached schedule. The government party notices also listed the respective notification days for the purpose of s. 29(4)(a), and included a statement that it was considered that the grants attracted the expedited procedure.
[2] On the dates specified in the attached schedule, the native title party lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), expedited procedure objection applications pursuant to s. 32(3).
[3] On the dates specified in the attached schedule, Deputy President Sumner, as delegate of the President, appointed me as the Member to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of the expedited procedure objection inquiries.
[4] By letter dated 15 December 2011, the government party advised that it had withdrawn the assertion of the expedited procedure in relation to each of the proposed tenements outlined in the attached schedule. Accordingly the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to proceed.
Decision
[5] The expedited procedure objection applications as listed in the attached schedule are dismissed pursuant to section 148(a) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
John Sosso
Deputy President
SCHEDULE – DETERMINATION [2011] NNTTA 211 (16 December 2011)

Tenement

Government Party Notification

Notification Day s 29(4)(a)

Objection Application Lodged

Objection Application No.

Member Appointed

Grantee Party

Native Title Party &
Application No.

Date of Dismissal

EPC 1987

6/07/10

18/08/10

1/12/10

QO10/198

33/12/10

Mining Investments One Pty Ltd

Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2

QC97/55

16/12/11

EPM 18703

17/02/11

16/03/11

21/06/11

QO11/94

27/06/11

Aard Metals Limited

Russell Tatow, Patrick Silvester, Cynthia Kemp, Eve Fesl, Troy Noble, Fred Tull, Fergus Waterton, Richard Doyle and Madonna Barnes on behalf of the Iman People #2

QC97/55

16/12/11

The case involved an application by the plaintiffs, including Russell Tatow and others, to object to the proposed grant of exploration permits by the defendants, Mining Investments One Pty Ltd and Aard Metals Limited, over lands claimed by the plaintiffs as part of their native title. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which had to determine the validity of the objection under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The central legal issue was whether the Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the objection applications given that the government party, which had previously asserted the applicability of the expedited procedure, had withdrawn its assertion. The court had to consider whether the withdrawal of the government's claim for an expedited procedure extinguished the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court held that once the government party had withdrawn its assertion of the expedited procedure, the Court no longer had jurisdiction to proceed with the objection applications. This was because the jurisdiction of the court under the Native Title Act was contingent upon the presence of an expedited procedure application. The withdrawal of this assertion effectively removed the jurisdictional basis for the court to hear the objections. Consequently, the objection applications were dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the dismissal of the objection applications rendered the matter moot. The Court found no grounds to compel the government to proceed with an expedited procedure when it had withdrawn its initial assertion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established