Chant v Tincknell

Case [2015] QLC 3


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Chant v Tincknell & Ors  [2015] QLC 3
PARTIES: David James Chant
(applicant)
v
Paul Edmund Tincknell, Jane Louise Tincknell,
Gordon John Pringle and Nella Marie Pringle
(respondents)
FILE NO: MRA 448-14
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 30 January 2015
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 14 January 2015
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
A/JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDERS:

1.     Compensation is determined in the sum total of Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00).

2.     The applicant is to pay the respondents the total compensation amount of Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00) within two (2) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20198 by DNRM.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A
Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

  1. This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.

Background

  1. On 30 June 2014, David James Chant (the applicant) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20198 over land located approximately 40 km north north-west of Dimbulah in the Mareeba District. The land is within the Tableland Regional Council local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 5 years.  The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of gold.

  2. Access to the mining lease area is over land owned by Paul Edmund Tincknell, Jane Louise Tincknell, Gordon John Pringle and Nella Marie Pringle (the respondents).

  3. The land is more particularly described as Lot 20 on HG725 Mount Mulligan Holding.  The access comprises a 0.76 km track with an area of 1.14 hectares. 

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 the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (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 in determining the 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 of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (iii)diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (iv)severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the…

Continue reading Chant v Tincknell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chant v Tincknell [2015] QLC 3
Case
[2015] QLC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chant v Tincknell involved a dispute concerning the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease. The applicants, Chant, sought a review of the decision made by the respondents, Tincknell, regarding the compensation for the renewal of Mining Lease 20198. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was the correct method for determining the compensation owed for the renewal of a mining lease. Both parties presented arguments on this matter, however, neither party provided any material to assist the court in making its determination.

The court noted that in the absence of any material provided by either party, it was difficult to ascertain the correct approach to the determination of compensation. The court acknowledged that the relevant statutory provisions and case law provided some guidance on the factors to be considered in determining compensation, but there was no clear direction on how these factors should be applied in the specific circumstances of this case. The court held that, in the absence of any material, it was not possible to make a determination based on the evidence presented. The court concluded that the compensation should be set at the minimum possible amount, which in this case was Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00).

The court ordered that the compensation for the renewal of Mining Lease 20198 be set at Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00). The applicants were also ordered to pay this amount to the respondents within two months of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). The court's decision highlights the importance of providing material to assist the court in making a determination, particularly in cases where the statutory provisions and case law provide only limited guidance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the sum total of Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00).

2. The applicant is to pay the respondents the total compensation amount of Thirty-Two Dollars ($32.00) within two (2) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20198 by DNRM.

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.