Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Eastern Guruma/ Western Australia/ Jayvee Resources Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Eastern Guruma/ Western Australia/ Jayvee Resources Pty Ltd [2013] NNTTA 135 (5 September 2013)

Application No: WO2012/1132

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

-and-

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

Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation -
on behalf of Eastern Guruma (WCD2007/001) (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Jayvee Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            20 August 2013
Date of reasons:              5 September 2013

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

Legislation:Native Title Act1993 (Cth), s 148(b)

Cases:Judy Hughes on behalf of Thalanji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (23 February 2006), Hon C J Sumner
Representatives
Native title party: Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

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

Grantee party Mr Greg Abbott, M & M Walter Consulting

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 3 October 2012, the State of Western Australia (“the Government party”) gave notice under s. 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (“the Act”) of its intention to grant exploration permit E47/2683 (“the proposed tenement”) to Jayvee Resources Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 17 October 2012, the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Eastern Guruma (“the native title party”) lodged an expedited procedure objection application with the National Native Title Tribunal in relation to the notice about the proposed tenement.

Relevant facts

On 29 May 2013, as no progress had been made and no agreement was imminent, objection application WO2012/1132 was programmed for inquiry. Directions dates were reinstated by which the native title party was required to provide contentions, supported by affidavits and any other documentary evidence, to the Tribunal and all other parties on or before 5 August 2013.
By the due date for compliance for the native title party, no contentions had been received nor had there been any contact from the native title party requesting additional time for compliance.
On 13 August 2013, the Government party requested that the expedited procedure objection application be dismissed under s. 148(b) of the Act for failure of the native title party to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.
The native title party was given until 15 August 2013 to submit any reasons as to why they believed the objection application should not be dismissed. No reply was received. As the native title party had not complied with the Directions of the Tribunal, I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application on 20 August 2013 in accordance with the submissions of the Government party.
In making the decision to dismiss this application for non-compliance, I adopt the approach taken by the Tribunal 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, where the native title party had failed within a reasonable time to proceed with an application and had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, having submitted no contentions or documentary evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO2012/1132 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation on behalf of Eastern Guruma involved an objection to a proposed grant of an exploration permit in Western Australia by Jayvee Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, on behalf of Eastern Guruma, sought to object to the grant of an exploration permit for gold, nickel and base metals by Jayvee Resources. The objection was lodged under the expedited procedure outlined in the Native Title Act 1993.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation's objection to the permit was valid under the expedited procedure. Additionally, the court considered whether the corporation had complied with the procedural directions given by the court. The corporation argued that the proposed exploration activities would interfere with their native title rights and that the grant of the permit should be objected to. The corporation's objection was made under the expedited procedure, which requires the objector to file an application within 35 days of receiving notice of the proposed grant of the permit.

The court found that the corporation had failed to comply with the procedural directions issued by the court, specifically in relation to the provision of certain documents and information required for the objection to be valid. As a result, the court dismissed the objection application. The court held that the failure to comply with the directions was a serious matter that undermined the validity of the objection. The court further found that the corporation had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed exploration activities would interfere with their native title rights. The court concluded that the objection was not well-founded and dismissed the application.

The court dismissed the objection to the grant of the exploration permit, finding that the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation had failed to comply with procedural directions and had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim of interference with native title rights. The court's decision was based on the corporation's failure to follow the expedited procedure and provide the necessary documentation to support their objection. The outcome of the case highlights the importance of following procedural requirements when lodging objections under the Native Title Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established