LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Barrett v Weir and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 0182 PARTIES: Rodney Keith Barrett
(applicant)v. Kelven John Weir and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd
(respondents)FILE NO: MRA1322-08 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Application for compensation for renewal of mining lease DELIVERED ON: 24 December 2009 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD AT: Written submission PRESIDENT: Mrs CAC MacDonald ORDERS: 1. Compensation is determined in the sum of Four Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($4,125).
2. The respondents are ordered to pay One Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($1,650) to the applicant within one month of the date of this decision.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay the balance compensation of Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($2,475) to the applicant by three instalments of Eight Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($825) each, on or before 1 July 2010, 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application, fixed in the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750), within one month of the date of this decision.
CATCHWORDS: Mining lease renewal – compensation – claim for loss of value of land by landowner – claim allowed in part – claim for severance – not allowed – costs for preparation of claim allowed in part
This is an application by Rodney Keith Barrett for a determination of compensation under the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) in respect of renewal of Mining Lease 70211. The respondents to this application are Kelven John Weir and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd who are the holders of Mining Lease 70211. The mining lease was previously held by Mr Weir and a Mr MW Bayly. Mr Bayly's share in the lease was transferred to Gregcarbil Pty Ltd on 8 August 2008 and, consequently, the claim for compensation has proceeded against Gregcarbil in lieu of Mr Bayly.
With the consent of the parties this matter has been dealt with on the papers.
Mining Lease 70211 expired on 30 June 2008. The respondents have applied for a renewal of that lease for a period of five years. The lease partially covers Lot 5 on CLM 597 GHPL 37/3210A, County of Clermont, Parish of Keilambete which is owned by the applicant. The balance of Mining Lease 70211 partially covers Lot 63 on PT 358 in the County of Plantagenet, Parish of Anakie, and is the subject of a separate application for compensation by the owners of that property, Barry W and Emma L Sloan. The Court's determination of the compensation payable to the Sloans is dealt with in a separate decision.
The lease was originally granted for an area of 71.2743 ha, for the purpose of mining silver ore, gold, diamond, lead ore, sapphire and zircon and to establish a tailings/settling dam and treatment plant/mill site. The applicants' land is used for the purpose of grazing.
Section 279(1)(a) of the Act provides that a mining lease shall not…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Barrett v Weir and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QLC 182
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the value of the land prior to and after the mining lease was renewed. The court held that the loss of value was attributable to the mining activities and awarded compensation accordingly. However, the court rejected the claim for severance, finding that the respondents had not severed any part of the land. The court ordered the respondents to pay compensation in two parts: an immediate payment of $1,650 and the balance in three instalments by specified dates. Additionally, the court allowed the applicant's costs for preparing the claim in the sum of $750.
The court's orders included a determination of compensation amounting to $4,125, with specific payment terms for the respondents. The final orders mandated that the respondents pay the specified compensation and costs to the applicant within the stipulated timeframes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Compensation is determined in the sum of Four Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($4,125).
2. The respondents are ordered to pay One Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($1,650) to the applicant within one month of the date of this decision.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay the balance compensation of Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($2,475) to the applicant by three instalments of Eight Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($825) each, on or before 1 July 2010, 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application, fixed in the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750), within one month of the date of this decision.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.