The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Twelve Mile Pty Ltd

Case [2010] NNTTA 200


NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Twelve Mile Pty Ltd, [2010] NNTTA 200 (14 December 2010)

Application No:                 WO10/624

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-

Twelve Mile Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:              11 November 2010

Date of reasons:                 14 December 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

Representative of the        

Government party:           Mr Clyde Lannan, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the  

grantee party  Mr Dennis Hawtin, Giralia Resources NL

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

  1. On 5 May 2010, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) of its intention to grant exploration licence E08/2041 (‘the proposed licence’) to Twelve Mile Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.

  2. On 11 May 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

  1. The Tribunal made directions on 31 May 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 11 January 2011. 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 the preliminary conference on 22 June 2010, the grantee party representative, Mr Dennis Hawtin, requested the matter proceed to inquiry.  The Government party requested an amendment to directions which the grantee party supported.  Accordingly, on 5 July 2010, I amended directions for native title party compliance on or before 11 October 2010.

  3. At the listing hearing on 21 October 2010, the Government 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 at the listing hearing. Consequently the native title party was given a week to respond to the request for dismissal. However no submissions in relation to the native title party’s failure to comply or in response to the request for dismissal were received. On 11 November 2010, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application.

  1. 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 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

  1. Expedited procedure objection application WO10/624 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
14 December 2010

Details
AGLC
The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Twelve Mile Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 200
Case
[2010] NNTTA 200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (the Corporation) sought to object to the grant of an exploration licence to Twelve Mile Pty Ltd (the applicant) over land claimed as native title. The Corporation contended that the grant would irreversibly impact their native title rights and interests. The Corporation's objection was lodged under the expedited procedure set out in the Native Title Act 1993. Western Australia was also a party to the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the Corporation's objection application should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with the directions of the court in relation to the service of documents and the provision of evidence. The central issue was whether the Corporation's procedural shortcomings were so significant that they warranted the dismissal of their objection application, despite the merits of their claims.

The court found that the Corporation's failure to comply with the directions was a serious procedural breach, which undermined the fairness of the process. The Corporation had not provided the required notices to the applicant and the Minister, and had not produced the evidence necessary to substantiate their claims in a timely manner. The court concluded that these failures were not trivial and had a significant impact on the proceedings. The Corporation's objection application was dismissed, and the court did not need to determine the merits of the claim.

The court ordered that the objection application be dismissed and that the Corporation pay the costs of the application, including the costs of the applicant and Western Australia. The decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in native title proceedings, particularly in expedited procedures where timeliness and accuracy are crucial.

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.