Yungngora Aboriginal Corporation/ Western Australia/ 142 East Pty Ltd

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL

Yungngora Aboriginal Corporation/ Western Australia/ 142 East Pty Ltd [2014] NNTTA 25 (7 March 2014)

Application No: WO2013/0693

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

-and-

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

Yungngora Aboriginal Corporation – (WCD2007/002) (native title party)

-and-

The State of Western Australia (Government party)

-and-

142 East Pty Ltd (grantee party)

DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATION

Tribunal:  Member Helen Shurven
Place:  Perth
Date of dismissal:            5 March 2014
Date of reasons:              7 March 2014

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

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

Cases:Hughes on behalf of Thalanji/Western Australia/Regent Resources Limited; Ochre Resources Ltd, NNTT WO05/41 and WO05/567, [2006] NNTTA 18 (‘Hughes v Regent Resources and Another’)
Representatives
Native title party: Mr Jerome Frewen, Desert Management Pty Ltd

Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum

Grantee party Ms Lydia Brisbout, McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION TO DISMISS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE OBJECTION APPLICATIONS

Background

On 3 July 2013, 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 licence E04/2305 (“the proposed tenement”) to 142 East Pty Ltd (“the grantee party”) and included in the notice a statement that it considered that the grant attracted the expedited procedure.
On 4 July 2013, the Yungngora Aboriginal Corporation (“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 14 January 2014, the grantee party advised at an adjourned preliminary conference that they wished for this matter to proceed to an inquiry. Directions dates were set for objection application WO2013/0693 for which the native title party were required to provide contentions, supported by affidavits and any other documentary evidence, to the Tribunal and all other parties on or before 25 February 2014.
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 26 February 2014, 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 were given until 3 March 2014 to submit any reasons as to why they believed the objection application WO2013/0693 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 5 March 2014 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 Hughes v Regent Resources and Another 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 WO2013/0693 is dismissed pursuant to s 148(b) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Helen Shurven
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yungngora Aboriginal Corporation sought to object to the proposed grant of an exploration licence over land in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The respondent, 142 East Pty Ltd, was the applicant for the exploration licence. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Aboriginal Corporation argued that the proposed grant of the exploration licence would impede their native title rights, as recognised under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the Aboriginal Corporation's objection application complied with the requirements of the Act, particularly in relation to the expedited procedure for objecting to the grant of an exploration licence. The key issue was whether the Aboriginal Corporation had provided sufficient information to substantiate their claim of potential future act interference with their native title rights.

The court found that the Aboriginal Corporation had not provided the necessary information to substantiate their claim of potential future act interference with their native title rights. The court noted that the Aboriginal Corporation had failed to comply with the directions given to provide further information and particulars to support their objection. The court held that the failure to comply with these directions was a substantial non-compliance with the requirements of the Act, and as such, the objection application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of providing detailed and specific information to support an objection to the grant of an exploration licence, particularly in the context of an expedited procedure objection application.

The court's decision was based on the requirement under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) that an objection application must include sufficient information to substantiate the claim of potential future act interference with native title rights. The court found that the Aboriginal Corporation had not provided this information and had failed to comply with the directions given to provide further information. As a result, the objection application was dismissed. The court's decision highlights the importance of providing detailed and specific information to support an objection to the grant of an exploration licence, particularly in the context of an expedited procedure objection application. The court's decision also serves as a reminder of the need for parties to comply with the directions given by the court in order to ensure that their objection application is considered on its merits.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established