Brown v NBT Pty Ltd

Case [2016] QLC 64


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Brown v NBT Pty Ltd [2016] QLC 64
PARTIES: Stephen John Brown
(applicant)
v

NBT Pty Ltd ACN 001 945 446

(respondent)

FILE NO/s: MRA217-16
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of a mining lease.
DELIVERED ON: 3 November 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 18 August 2016
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDERS:

1.     In respect of ML 20243 compensation is determined in the total sum of $500.00.

2.     The applicant pay compensation to the respondent the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – renewal – referral – determination of   compensation – absence of expert or valuation evidence – use of Court judgments for determination purposes.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 281(1)

Public Trustee Act 1978

Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd v Power & Anor [2014] QLC 46

Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38

Fitzgerald v Struber & Anor[2016] QLC 6

Re Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC 76

Kelly v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 7

Wallace & Ors v Bottomer & Ors [2015] QLC 23

Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES: Not applicable
  1. This proceeding concerns a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 281(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of Mining Lease 20243 (ML 20243).

Background

  1. The applicant, Stephen John Brown (the miner) seeks the renewal of a mining lease located on land described as Lot 4567 on SP 254826.  The area relevant to this determination concerns an 8.5 km access track across land owned by the respondent, NBT Pty Ltd ACN 001 945 446 (the landowner). 

  2. The subject land, known as Bellevue Station is located in the Mareeba Shire Local Government area and is used for grazing purposes. 

  3. The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows: 

Court Reference Tenure ID Relevant Area Term Purpose
MRA217-16 ML 20243 8.5 ha 10 years Access

Relevant Legislation

  1. Section 279 of the 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.

  2. Section 281 of the 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…

Continue reading Brown v NBT Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brown v NBT Pty Ltd [2016] QLC 64
Case
[2016] QLC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brown v NBT Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around the renewal of a mining lease, specifically ML 20243, and the compensation to be paid in relation to this renewal. The matter was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The applicant, Brown, sought a renewal of the mining lease, and the respondent, NBT Pty Ltd, contested the amount of compensation that should be paid. The court had to determine the compensation based on the value of the land affected by the mining lease renewal, considering the absence of any expert or valuation evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was how to determine the compensation for the renewal of the mining lease in the absence of any expert or valuation evidence. The court had to decide whether it could rely on previous judgments or other means to determine the compensation. The court considered whether it could use the compensation awarded in similar cases or the market value of the land as a basis for its decision.

The court held that in the absence of expert or valuation evidence, it could determine the compensation by referring to previous judgments in similar matters. The court noted that the compensation awarded in previous cases, where the facts were sufficiently similar, could serve as a reasonable basis for determining the compensation in the current case. The court also considered the market value of the land as an alternative means of determining the compensation. Ultimately, the court determined the compensation to be $500, based on the compensation awarded in similar cases and the market value of the land.

The court ordered that the applicant pay compensation to the respondent in the total sum of $500 within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of ML 20243 compensation is determined in the total sum of $500.00.

2. The applicant pay compensation to the respondent the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

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.