The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/BRL Exploration Pty Ltd

Case [2009] NNTTA 104


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/BRL Exploration Pty Ltd, [2009] NNTTA 104 (3 September 2009)

Application No:                 WO09/83

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

-and-

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

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation – WC99/45 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

BRL Exploration Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:               1 September 2009

Date of reasons:                 3 September 2009

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

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth) ss 29, 148(b)

Cases:Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanyji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (23 February 2006), Hon C J Sumner

Representative of the        

native title party:              Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Representatives of the       Ms Claire Malavaux, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Government party:           Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the  

grantee party  Mr Clive Miller, Tenure Matters

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

  1. On 28 November 2008, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/1865 to BRL Exploration Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

  2. On 14 January 2009, the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (‘the native title party’) made an expedited procedure objection application to the Tribunal in relation to the proposed licence.

Relevant facts

  1. The Tribunal made directions on 13 July 2009 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 17 August 2009. The directions contain a statement that the objection may be dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act if the objector fails within a reasonable time to proceed with the application or to comply with a direction of the Tribunal.

  2. At an adjourned status conference on 22 July 2009 the grantee party representative, Mr Clive Miller, requested the matter proceed to inquiry. The Government party has complied with directions and the grantee party has advised they will rely on the Government party’s contentions.  No submissions have been received from the native title party.

  3. At the listing hearing on 27 August 2009, the Government party and grantee party sought dismissal of the objection pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with a direction of the Tribunal by the native title party. The representative for the native title party, Mr Jerome Frewen, was not available for the listing hearing. On the same date, the Tribunal advised Mr Frewen in writing of the request to dismiss the objection pursuant to s 148(b) of the Act. No further submissions from the native title party have been received. On 1 September 2009, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application. I find that the native title party has failed to comply with a direction of the Tribunal and has provided no satisfactory explanation for its failure. In making the decision to dismiss this application for non-compliance, I adopt the Tribunal’s findings in Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanyji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (23 February 2006), Hon C J Sumner.

Decision

  1. Expedited procedure objection application WO09/83 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
3 September 2009

Details
AGLC
The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/BRL Exploration Pty Ltd [2009] NNTTA 104
Case
[2009] NNTTA 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation, as the registered native title holder, filed an objection against a proposed grant of an exploration licence over their native title area. The respondent, Western Australia, was responsible for administering the grant of the licence. BRL Exploration Pty Ltd was the applicant for the exploration licence. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the objection application could proceed under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the objection application could proceed under the expedited procedure, given the corporation's failure to comply with specific directions provided by the court. The court was required to balance the need for procedural fairness against the potential detriment to the native title holders if the application was not expedited.

The court held that the objection application could not proceed under the expedited procedure due to the corporation's non-compliance with the directions. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure a fair and just outcome. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, and the proposed grant of the exploration licence was allowed to proceed. The court's decision highlighted the significance of procedural compliance in native title matters and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to court directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.