Caml Resources Pty Ltd v Small

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: CAML Resources Pty Ltd & Ors v Small & Ors [2014] QLC 44
PARTIES:

CAML Resources Pty Ltd, Anglo Coal (Foxleigh) Pty Ltd and Nippon Steel & Simitomo Metal Australia Pty Ltd
(applicants)

v
Gregory William Small, Marie Eva Small and Brian James Small
(respondents)
FILE NO: MRA331-13
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Application for costs
DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2014
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: 9 September 2014
HEARD AT: Brisbane
MEMBER: WA Isdale
ORDERS:

1.    The general application is dismissed.

2.    The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the general application on the indemnity basis. Such costs are to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

3.    There are no other orders as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 260, 261, 268(9), 269
Land Court Act 2000, s 34

Costs – indemnity basis – standard basis – discretion – exercise of discretion

Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace & Anor (2010) 31 QLCR 74
APT Petroleum Pipelines Pty Limited v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2) [2014] QLC 27
Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 4) (2010) 31 QLCR 141
Moreton Bay Regional Council v Mekpine Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2014] QLAC 5
Ostroco v Department of Transport and Main Roads (No 3) [2104] QLAC 7
Townsville City Council v Moyses & Ors (1979) 6 QLCR 271
Wallace v Anson Holdings Pty Ltd and The Environmental Protection Agency [2009] QLC 107
APPEARANCES: GW Batt, solicitor, Blackston Lawyers, for the applicants
DA Skennar instructed by Rees R & Sydney Jones, solicitors, for the respondents

Background

  1. The applicants applied for the grant of a Mining Lease (ML) 70310. The respondents made an objection to the granting of the lease and the objection was referred to the Land Court for determination. The Mining Registrar made the referral to the Land Court on 27 August 2013 in accordance with the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act).

  2. The Court listed the matter for directions on 5 November 2013. On 30 October 2013 the solicitors for the applicants wrote to the Court requesting that the matter be adjourned until after 14 January 2014 as there were reasonable prospects of the matter being resolved by private negotiations. The solicitors for the respondent agreed. The Court adjourned the matter to 4 February 2014.

  3. On 4 February 2014 the Court ordered at the request of and by consent of the parties that the matter be adjourned to 9 April 2014. Written submissions provided to the Court in support of the adjournment referred to the “amicable working relationship over the past 15 years” that had allowed the parties to negotiate the grant of four other mining leases. The submissions set out the meetings which had already taken place and which were planned in order to try to resolve the dispute.

  4. On 9 April 2014 the parties returned to Court and advised that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Caml Resources Pty Ltd v Small 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QLC 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Caml Resources Pty Ltd v Small, the dispute arose between Caml Resources Pty Ltd and Small regarding the costs associated with an objection to a mining lease application. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The primary issue before the court was whether the objector, Caml Resources Pty Ltd, was entitled to be exempt from liability for costs after objecting to the mining lease application, and whether the objector's conduct during the proceedings warranted an indemnity costs order against it.

The court examined the statutory provisions regarding costs in the context of mining lease objections, as well as the discretion granted to the tribunal under the Land Court Act. The tribunal referred to the decision in Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace, where it was held that an objector has a statutory right to object but is not automatically exempt from liability for costs. The tribunal noted that the discretion to award costs under the Land Court Act is broad, and various factors must be considered, including the objector's conduct, the nature of the objections, the prospects of success, and the impact on the applicant.

In this case, the tribunal found that Caml Resources Pty Ltd's objections were largely formal and did not demonstrate any significant prejudice. Additionally, the tribunal considered the objector's conduct unreasonable, leading to an unnecessarily lengthy hearing. Consequently, the tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs on an indemnity basis. The tribunal rejected the argument that costs could only be awarded in the limited circumstances outlined in the Mineral Resources Act, finding that these provisions were consistent with the broader discretion granted under the Land Court Act.

The final orders of the tribunal were that the general application was dismissed, and Caml Resources Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the general application on an indemnity basis. The costs were to be agreed upon or, if agreement could not be reached, assessed. There were no other orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The general application is dismissed.

2. The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the general application on the indemnity basis. Such costs are to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed.

3. There are no other orders as to costs.

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

They point to the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace & Anor[7] where the Land Appeal Court said:[7](2010) 31 QLCR 74.“General conclusions [36] The submissions on the appeal amounted to the proposition that the appellant had a statutory right to object to the application for a mining lease and that, in the course of exercising that right, the appellant was entitled to take any point that indicated that the application was defective without incurring liability as to costs. [37] We accept that the appellant had a statutory right to object to the mining lease on the basis that the relevant statutory provisions had not been complied with. However that does not mean that someone in the position of the appellant is automatically exempt from any liability for the payment of costs. As discussed above, s.34 of the Land Court Act gives the Court complete and full discretion as to whether to award costs. In exercising that discretion it is relevant, as the learned Member did, to take into account the fact that the grant of a mining lease can lead to an unwelcome intrusion on to the objector's property. But that is only one factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion. Without attempting to be exhaustive or prescriptive, other factors that may be taken into account are the conduct of the objector in pursuing the objections including a consideration of the nature of the objections, whether there was any reasonable prospect of success in pursuing those objections, the degree of prejudice likely to be suffered by the appellant if the right to object was not pursued, whether the appellant's conduct lead to an unnecessarily lengthy hearing and whether in general the objector has conducted the progress of the objections in a reasonable manner. [38] That is not to suggest that the conduct of the other parties to a proceeding is free from scrutiny. When exercising its discretion under s.34(1), the Court will take into account the conduct of all the parties to the proceeding and any other relevant factor in deciding whether to make an order for costs.[39] We can find no error in the matters which the learned Member took into account in exercising his discretion under s.34(1) of the Land Court Act. Accordingly, we consider that the appeal should be dismissed.”[8][8](2010) 31 QLCR 74, [36] - [39].[references omitted] The applicants submit that the principal matter referred to the Court has not been discontinued as the applicants have not consented to discontinuance under Rule 16(2) of the Land Court Rules 2000. The applicants have referred to the decision of this Court in Wallace v Anson Holdings Pty Ltd and The Environmental Protection Agency.[9] In that case Member Scott said:[9][2009] QLC 107.“[3]The objector made reference to s.268(8) and (9) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 which provides:(8) The Land Court on the application of an objector or owner may award costs against an applicant for a mining lease who abandons the application or does not pursue the application at a hearing.(9) The Land Court on the application of an applicant for a mining lease may award costs against an objector who withdraws the objection or does not pursue the objection at a hearing.[4]It was submitted for the objector that the provisions referred to compromise provisions contrary to s.34(1) of the Land Court Act and limit the operation of s.34 accordingly. It follows according to that submission that it is only in the limited circumstances provided for in s.268(8( and (9) of the Mineral Resources Act that costs with respect to a mining lease application can be awarded.[5]I do not accept that submission. The provisions referred to in s.268 of the Mineral Resources Act provide particular examples of circumstances where costs may be awarded and can be read consistently with the power created by s.34 of the Land Court Act for the Land Court to award costs in a proceeding. …[11]Whilst the success of the applicant in gaining a recommendation for the grant of a mining lease is not an irrelevant consideration in a costs application of this type it is not in my view conclusive. The landholder has exercised a statutory right to object in circumstances where the grant of a mining lease can lead to an unwelcome intrusion on to the objector’s property. Nevertheless an objector must conduct himself reasonably in progressing an objection. As the reasons in the substantive decision demonstrate, the objector founded the bulk of his grounds of objection on matters of a formal nature in respect of which no prejudice to the objector was demonstrated. Each of those objections was dismissed, albeit in the case of two matters, only following a conclusion by me under s.392 of the Mineral Resources Act that substantial compliance was found, thus leading to a dismissal of the relevant grounds of objection. I might also mention that whereas the applicant sought a lease with a 50 year term, my conclusion was to recommend a 21 year term only.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.