Armstrong v Savage Togara Coal Pty Ltd

In the case of Armstrong v Savage Togara Coal Pty Ltd, the appeal was brought against the determination of the Mining Wardens Court, Emerald, which had decided on the compensation payable under Section 282 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for Mining Lease No. 70149 in the Emerald Mining District. The appellants, NF, J, RE and DL Armstrong, challenged the Warden's decision that the owners' exposure to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) was not a compensable item under s.281 MRA, and that there should be no increase under s.281(4)(e) beyond the statutory 10%. The appellants argued that the compulsory nature of the acquisition had a greater impact on "Comet Downs" than on the other two properties, and that mining sales should be used as a guide to the 'additional amount' to be paid under Section 281(4)(e) of the Act.

The court considered the evidence presented by the parties, including the valuation evidence given by Alan George Todd for the Armstrongs. The court concluded that emotional attachment to land is not a factor which can give rise to an additional amount under s.281(4)(e) greater than the statutory 10% minimum. The court also found that the matter complained of was not an aspect of land value, but rather a concern or disappointment on the part of the appellants that their hopes and aspirations for the "Comet Downs" aggregation will not be realised.

Regarding the use of "mining sales" in making the assessment of the additional amount to be determined under subsection (4)(e), the court concluded that reference to such transactions is of no assistance in the determination of an additional amount under subsection (4)(e). The court held that s.281(4)(e) is not concerned with the finding of the price that the land owner might have received had he traded in the marketplace and not been subject to the statutory processes resulting in an imposition of a mining lease over his land.

As for the Capital Gains Tax, the court found that exposure to a CGT assessment is not a matter which arises for assessment as an item of compensation under s.281(3)(a)(vi) MRA as it is not a consequence of the grant of the mining lease. The court declined to order the giving of an indemnity, but invited the parties to address the question of the state of the evidence and whether the grounds of appeal allow for the enlargement of the additional amount above the 10% provided for in s.281(4)(e).

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Warden's determination that the additional amount to be paid under s.281(4)(e) should be 10% for each of the properties in question. The court also declined to order the giving of an indemnity with respect to the prospect of a CGT assessment being made with respect to compensation flowing from these proceedings.