Agnew v Dwaj Pty Ltd

[2020] QLC 14

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Agnew & Ors v DWAJ Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 14

PARTIES:

Alan David Agnew
(applicant)

Helen Joyce Gaudion
(applicant)

Mary Magdalene Rodrigues-Agnew
(applicant)

v

DWAJ Pty Ltd
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA704-19

DIVISION:

General division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2020 [ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT:

Mareeba

HEARD ON:

10 March 2020

HEARD AT:

Mareeba

MEMBER:

PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER:

I determine compensation in respect of ML 40084 in the sum of Two Hundred and Thirty-One Dollars ($231) per annum for the term of the lease, indexed annually according to the Consumer Price Index.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicants owned a mining lease situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 – where the applicants were represented by an agent and the respondent was represented by a director of the company

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281

Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd v Campbell [2019] QLC 44, cited
Cross v Barrett [2020] QLC 6, followed

APPEARANCES:

C Mackney (agent), Avoca Tenement Consulting Pty Ltd, for the applicants
W Johnson, a director of the respondent

1. Alan Agnew holds a mining lease that is part of the Mount Gibson Station.[1]  That property is owned by DWAJ Pty Ltd.  Ray Johnson is a director of that company.  The parties cannot agree on the compensation that Mr Agnew should pay DWAJ.  It is fair to say that previous mining operations, in which Mr Agnew may or may not have participated, have created an atmosphere of distrust between the parties.

   [1]The rest of this judgment erroneously refers to the station as ‘Mount Garnet Station’. The correct name of the station is Mount Gibson Station.

1. Mr Johnson wants to impose strict conditions on the operation of the mining lease.  However, as I have already pointed out to Mr Johnson, firstly, I must assume that Mr Agnew will comply with the conditions of the mining lease when assessing compensation and, secondly, my power in this Court is limited to assessing compensation only, and I cannot impose conditions.

1. Mr Agnew has offered $10.20 per hectare over 16.1, I think, hectares, which represents the unimproved value of the land on a per-hectare basis.  Mr Johnson wants $20 per hectare.  He has a number of grounds to justify that amount, and I will consider each of them separately.

Loss of cattle

1. Firstly, the loss of cattle. Section 281(3)(a) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 contemplates compensation for loss and expense incurred during or because of mining operations.  And it is entirely conceivable that stock may be lost by being, for example, stuck in a tailings dam.  But I am not going to preload compensation on a possibility.  If a beast is lost because of the operation of the mining lease, then Mr Johnson can claim that compensation by…