Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Peter Romeo Gianni

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/Peter Romeo Gianni, [2010] NNTTA 17 (9 February 2010)

Application No: WO09/323

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 – WC97/89 (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

Peter Romeo Gianni (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:               5 February 2010
Date of reasons:                 9 February 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:Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd, NNTT WO07/510-512, [2008] NNTTA 17 (7 February 2008), Hon C J Sumner
Representative of the

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

Representatives of the Mr Greg Abbott, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Government party: Ms Claire Malavaux, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Representative of the

grantee party: Mr Peter Romeo Gianni

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS OBJECTION APPLICATION

Background

On 6 May 2009, the Government party gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence E47/1966 (‘the proposed licence’) to Peter Romeo Gianni (‘the grantee party’) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 7 May 2009 the Wintawari Guruma 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 16 June 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 affidavit on or before 18 January 2010. The directions contain a statement that an 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.
During the first preliminary conference convened on 29 June 2009, the grantee party confirmed that he wished to proceed to inquiry. The Government party supported the request to proceed to inquiry. The native title party made application for compliance dates to stand and was supported by the grantee and Government parties.
The Government party has complied with directions but neither contentions nor evidence have been lodged by the native title party. During the listing hearing on 4 February 2010, Mr Jerome Frewen, representing the native title party, made application for a one month extension of time to comply on the basis that Law Business was ongoing and a meeting with the native title party is scheduled for early March at which time contentions and evidence will be gathered. The Government party made application to dismiss the objection pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act1993 on the basis that the native title party had failed to comply by the compliance date. The grantee party supported the request for dismissal. On 5 February 2010 I dismissed the expedited procedure objection application.

Conclusion

I have previously considered similar cases involving the same native title party as in this present matter (for example, Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation/Western Australia/FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd, NNTT WO07/510-512, [2008] NNTTA 17 (7 February 2008)). I conclude that dismissal of the objection is justified because the native title party has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions having submitted no statements of contention or supporting evidence despite having been informed of the possible consequences of a failure to comply. The native title party was aware from at least 29 June 2009 that an inquiry was required, and has provided no satisfactory explanation for its failure to comply.

Decision

Expedited procedure objection application WO09/323 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Hon C J Sumner
Deputy President
9 February 2010

The Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation initiated legal proceedings against Western Australia and Peter Romeo Gianni, challenging a decision to grant an exploration licence on their native title land. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the corporation sought to object to the grant under the Native Title Act 1993. The court was tasked with determining whether the corporation's objection application should proceed and whether the parties had complied with the court's procedural directions.

The legal issues before the court centred on the corporation's compliance with procedural requirements set forth by the court, specifically regarding the submission of their objection application within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the corporation's failure to adhere to these procedural requirements warranted the dismissal of their objection application. The court also needed to assess whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify the corporation's non-compliance.

The court found that the corporation had not complied with the procedural directions issued by the court, which required them to submit their objection application within a specific timeframe. Despite the corporation's argument that they had a reasonable excuse for their non-compliance, the court determined that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify their failure to meet the deadline. Consequently, the court dismissed the corporation's objection application. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving native title and exploration licences.

In its final orders, the court dismissed the objection application brought by the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation, affirming the decision of Western Australia and Peter Romeo Gianni to proceed with the proposed exploration licence on the native title land. The court underscored the necessity for all parties involved in such proceedings to strictly adhere to the procedural rules and timelines set by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established