LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Transcription

1 LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: North Queensland Mining Pty Ltd v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 4 PARTIES: FILE NO: PROCEEDINGS: North Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (applicant) v Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber (respondents) MRA Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease. DELIVERED ON: 29 January 2016 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 30 November 2015 HEARD AT: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: Heard on the papers GJ Smith ORDERS: 1. In respect of ML compensation is determined in the total sum of $ per annum. 2. The miner pay compensation to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the issue of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease. CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE - grant - access - determination of compensation - use of Court judgments for determination purposes. Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 279, 281 Public Trustee Act 1978 Part 7 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38 Fitzgerald v Struber [2014] QLC 20 Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC 0076 Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 0076 Wallace & Ors v Bottomer & Ors [2015] QLC 23 Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 APPEARANCES: Not applicable

2 [1] These proceedings concern a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 279(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the grant of Mining Lease The referral was filed in the Land Court on 31 March Background [2] The applicant, North Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (the miner) seeks the grant of a mining lease located on land described as Lot 14 on SP The Mining Lease Area comprises 266 ha within Palmerville Station which is owned by the respondents Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber (the landowners). [3] The property is located in the Cook Shire Local Government area and is used for grazing purposes. [4] The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows: Court Reference Tenure ID Area Term Lease Purpose MRA ha 10 years Alluvial mining [5] On 16 March 2015 a Certificate of Application for Mining Lease was issued by the Mining Registrar at Mareeba. Relevant Legislation [6] Section 279 MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination. [7] Section 281 MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for: (i) deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner; (ii) diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon; (iii) diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon; (iv) severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner; (v) any surface rights of access; (vi) all loss or expense that arises; as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease. [8] Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation determination. In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as follows: 2

3 (4) In assessing the amount of compensation payable under subsection (3) - (e) an additional amount shall be determined to reflect the compulsory nature of action taken under this part which amount shall be not less than 10% of the aggregate amount determined under subsection (3). [9] The assessment to be undertaken in accordance with s 281 was discussed in Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd 1 as follows - It is beyond question as I have written above that the primary source of law is the statute under consideration and it seems to me that the learned Member acknowledged this when he said: The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. Section 281 MRA neither prescribes nor suggests a method of assessment or valuation either. The selection of an appropriate method is a matter for the relevant expert, however, there is one warning that I should post. If the expert was to approach the assessment of compensation by simply accumulating figures assessed independently under each of the items listed in s.281(3)(a)(i) to (vi) and without regard to the prospect of a matter being dealt with under more than one item, the chance that there will be a duplication of items assessed will be high. The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence [10] On 20, 21 and 24 November 2014, registry staff attempted to make contact with the landowners by telephone regarding several unrelated referrals that were then before the Land Court pursuant to the MRA. The calls were to request the landowners to activate their facsimile machine in order to enable documentation to be transmitted. The landowners had earlier suggested that this approach be adopted for the provision of documents to them. On each date the phone was not answered so messages were left requesting the landowners to contact the Land Court. No phone calls were subsequently received by the Land Court from either landowner. [11] On 1 April 2015, the Land Court registry wrote to the parties setting out a timetable for the delivery of materials and submissions in accordance with Land Court Practice Direction No.5 of [12] On 5 May 2015 a submission was filed by Mining and Resource Permit Services on behalf of the miner. [13] No material was received by the Land Court from the landowners in accordance with the timetable set out in the correspondence from the Court dated 1 April [14] Further attempts during the first half of 2015 to contact the landowners were not successful. Registry staff also attempted, unsuccessfully, to arrange for the provision of documents via a legal representative who was at that time representing Mr Struber in respect of other matters. 1 Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 at

4 [15] During the latter part of July 2015 the Land Court became aware that the landowners had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court at Cairns. The Registrar of the Land Court wrote to the Public Trustee of Queensland 2 on 4 August 2015 to notify of the present litigation. [16] On 25 August correspondence from the Official Solicitor to the Public Trustee (the Official Solicitor) advised the Land Court that documentation in relation to these proceedings could be served upon the Official Solicitor. [17] On 26 August 2015 registry staff forwarded to the Official Solicitor all material that had been received by the Land Court subsequent to the referral by DNRM. [18] On 25 September 2015, following a request by the Official Solicitor an extension for the filing of additional material was granted until 30 October This date was extended to 30 November 2015 after a further request by the Official Solicitor. [19] On 26 November 2015 a hand written submission was filed on behalf of the landowners. The one page document addressed an array of issues collateral to the determination of compensation pursuant to s 281 MRA. These issues largely related to the service/provision of documents and alleged non-compliance with processes associated with the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA) and the MRA. [20] The referral by DNRM to the Land Court pursuant to s 279(5) MRA relates only to the determination of compensation and consequently the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to that determination pursuant to s 281 MRA. [21] Issues associated with alleged non-compliance are not matters that the Court can consider as part of this referral. Concerns held by the landowners may be referred to DNRM or the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection for further action if necessary. [22] No additional material or submission has been received from the Miner and in the circumstances I consider it is appropriate to proceed to determine the issue of compensation pursuant to s 281 MRA. Determination [23] Neither party has sought to rely upon valuation or other expert evidence in support of their contended positions. In such cases the observations of Member Jones [as he then was] regarding the nature of the assessment process in Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman 3, are relevant: I realise that my determination of compensation in this case is the result of little more than calculated guesswork or speculation. However, in circumstances where the parties have elected to provide little or no material to the Court concerning their position about compensation there is not much more that the Court can do. 2 Refer Part 7 Public Trustee Act Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC

5 [24] The submission on behalf of the miner states as follows, The miner agrees to pay the owner $10/ha/annum for mining which is in line with numerous Land Court determinations with regards to Palmerville Station including MRA Fitzgerald v Struber 4. The submission filed by the landowners did not suggest any specific amount of compensation be determined in respect of the referral. [25] After considering the factors set out in s 281 MRA and the material and submissions provided, the amounts suggested by the miner appear quite reasonable. However, the determination of compensation will require the contended amounts to be considered in light of relevant Court determinations in the absence of valuation or other expert evidence. In my view the most useful guide for determining compensation are Land Court judgments which have had the benefit of evidence tested by cross examination, full submissions and where the Court as constituted was familiar with or had inspected Palmerville Station. [26] The judgment which provides the most useful guidance for this purpose is Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor 5. This proceeding involved multiple applicants and the current landowners as respondents. Member PA Smith determined compensation in respect of the mining lease area at an annual rate of $10/ha per annum and the access area at $5/ha per annum. In a later case of Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor 6, Member Smith allowed the sum of $10/ha per annum for the area covered by the mining lease and $5/ha per annum for access in respect of the renewal of a mining lease in the Mareeba District. In a more recent decision, Wallace & Ors v Bottomer & Ors 7, Member Smith determined compensation for the mining area of a renewed lease in the Mareeba District at $10/ha per annum. It is apparent that Member Smith, in addition to these cases, has also undertaken site inspections and many compensation determinations in relation to Palmerville Station. [27] Based on the preceding judicial determinations of compensation I consider that $10/ha per annum in respect of the mining area is an appropriate amount for the determination of compensation in this matter. ML [28] The determination of compensation in respect of proposed ML concerns mining lease areas only. Mapping data provided by DNRM confirms that the area of the mining lease is 266 ha. [29] The final determination in respect of ML is set out as follows: Area covered by mining lease 266 $10/ha = $ per annum add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant = $ per annum Total = $ per annum 4 Fitzgerald v Struber [2014] QLC 20 5 Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38 7 Wallace & Ors v Bottomer & Ors [2015] QLC 23 5

6 [30] In view of the landholders present circumstances, I intend to order that the compensation ORDERS determined be paid to the Public Trustee of Queensland. 1. In respect of ML compensation is determined in the total sum of $ per annum. 2. The miner pay compensation to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the issue of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease. GJ SMITH JUDICIAL REGISTRAR 6