The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Mount Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Mount Resources Pty Ltd, [2010] NNTTA 125 (11 August 2010)

Application No: WO10/388

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-

Mount Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:               22 July 2010

Date of reasons: 11 August 2010

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 Garry Billing

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

On 11 February 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/2013 (‘the proposed licence’) to Mount 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 February 2010, 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

The Tribunal made directions on 29 March 2010 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 October 2010. 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.
At the status conference on 13 April 2010 the grantee party representative requested the matter proceed to inquiry. Accordingly, on 23 April 2010, I amended directions for native title party compliance on or before 12 July 2010. The Government party has complied with directions. To date no contentions or evidence have been received from the native title party.
At the listing hearing on 22 July 2010, 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 native title party representative was not in attendance and requested, via email, that the listing hearing be adjourned for one week. However no submissions in relation to the native title party’s failure to comply with directions were received. On 22 July 2010, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application.

I find that the Buurabalayji Thalanyji native title party has failed to comply with a direction of the Tribunal’s and has provided no satisfactory explanation for its failure to do so. 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

Expedited procedure objection application WO10/388 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
11 August 2010

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation sought to object to a proposed grant of an exploration licence by Western Australia to Mount Resources Pty Ltd, under an expedited procedure. The dispute centred on whether the corporation had a sufficient connection to the native title claim area and whether the corporation's objection application complied with the procedural requirements set forth by the court. The primary legal issues were whether the corporation had standing to object under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and whether their failure to comply with specific procedural directions justified dismissal of their objection application.

The court examined the corporation's connection to the native title claim area, finding that the corporation, as a representative body, had the necessary standing to object. However, the court noted that the corporation's objection application was deficient in several respects, including the failure to provide adequate particulars and documentation. Despite the corporation's argument that the deficiencies were minor and did not prejudice the respondent, the court held that strict compliance with procedural directions was essential, particularly in expedited proceedings. The court dismissed the objection application due to the non-compliance with these directions.

The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in native title matters, particularly when dealing with expedited procedures. The court emphasised that even minor procedural shortcomings could result in the dismissal of an objection application, reinforcing the need for careful adherence to court-imposed directions. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed, allowing the proposed grant of the exploration licence to proceed. The court did not make any further orders, leaving the parties to manage the consequences of the dismissal as per their respective rights and obligations under the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established