Citigold Corporation Limited v Charters Towers Regional Council
[2025] QLC 27
•5 November 2025
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Citigold Corporation Limited v Charters Towers Regional Council [2025] QLC 27
PARTIES:
Citigold Corporation Limited
ABN 30 060 397 177
(appellant)
v
Charters Towers Regional Council
(respondent)
FILE NO:
LGR580-23
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against categorisation decision under the Local Government Regulation 2012
DELIVERED ON:
5 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARD ON:
18, 19 August 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
MEMBER:
W A Isdale
ORDER:
The appeal is not allowed.
CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY – RATES AND CHARGES – CATEGORIES OF LAND – where a mine was non-operational during the relevant rating period – where the managing director of the miner possessed intentions to eventually re-open the mine – where the relevant parcels were categorised by the council as a category for active mines – where the miner appealed on the basis the mine should fall into a rating category for all other land subject to a mining lease – whether the Court should change the rating category for the land
STATUTES – SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION – CONSTRUCTION – PARTICULAR WORDS – whether a mine in care and maintenance was in “use” for the purpose of a council revenue statement – whether the subject parcels were in “care and maintenance”
Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) s 90, s 91, s 92, s 93
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32C
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill South Limited (1941) 65 CLR 150, applied
McClymont v Solar Silicon Resources Group Pte Ltd [2016] QLC 67, cited
Orr v LakeCoal Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 360, cited
Ostwald Accommodation Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2016] 2 Qd R 14, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, cited
Realm Business Technology Pty Ltd as Tte v Redland City Council [2020] QLC 35, applied
Western Downs Regional Council v Geldard [2020] QLAC 1, cited
White & Anor v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51, citedAPPEARANCES:
M J Batty KC, with M Rodgers (instructed by Clinton Mohr Lawyers) for the appellant
K W Wylie (instructed by Preston Law) for the respondent
Background
Citigold Corporation Limited (Citigold) is an ASX listed gold development and exploration company operating in Charters Towers, a town in North Queensland. It has a registered office in Brisbane.
Citigold holds mining leases over three distinct areas in Charters Towers known as “Central”, “Stockholm” and “Imperial” (collectively, ‘the relevant parcels'). “Central” includes “Property 1” (which has twelve mining leases) and “Property 2” (which has one mining lease); “Stockholm” includes “Property 3” (which has one mining lease), “Property 4” (which also has one mining lease) and “Property 5” (which has three mining leases); “Imperial” includes “Property 6” (which has three mining leases) and “Property 7” (which has four mining leases).
The relevant parcels were once part of an operational mine where historical mining activities ceased in 2015 at the latest.
Citigold “aspires” to one day reopen gold mining operations on the relevant parcels. It says there are considerable hurdles that need to be overcome if mining is ever to occur again, however.
On a date prior to 1 July 2023, the Charters Towers Regional Council (the Council) resolved to adopt the Council’s Revenue Statement 2023-24 (Revenue Statement). This document came into effect on 1 July 2023.
Utilising the Revenue Statement, the Council categorised the relevant parcels as Category 20. Category 20 is described as follows –
Category 20 - Other Mine/quarry or extractive land use - less than 25 employees and/or contractors
Land which is:
(a) which is a mining lease issued pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 with a rateable valuation greater than $14,999, which forms part of a Mine with less than 25 employees and/or contractors, or
(b) has a rateable valuation greater than $14,999 that is used or is capable of being used in whole or in part, for the purpose of a Mine or quarry with less than 25 employees and/or contractors.
On 14 September 2023, the Council received a letter from Citigold entitled “Formal Complaint Regarding Rating Categorisation”.
By return letter dated 21 September 2023, the Council gave reasons for its decision to categorise the relevant parcels as Category 20.
Citigold sought an internal review of this decision.
There was no contention between the parties regarding the form of Citigold’s objection notice for the purpose of s 90(4) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (LGR).
On 27 October 2023, the Council’s Chief Executive Officer affirmed its decision to rate the relevant parcels as Category 20, pursuant to s 91 of the LGR.
This is an appeal against that decision under s 92 of the LGR.
Citigold submits that Category 21, a catch-all category for land that does not fit into any of the other categories, should apply to the relevant parcels instead. Category 21 is as follows –
Category 21 – Other Mine/quarry or extractive land use (not falling within Category 16 to 20)
Land which is:
(a) a mining lease issued pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 1989, and does not fall into Categories 16 to 20, or
(b) used or is capable of being used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of a Mine or quarry and does not fall into Categories 16 to 20.
Citigold says the Council, in deciding the relevant parcels fell within Category 20 –
(a)relied on an incorrect interpretation and application of Category 20 and Category 21; and
(b)relied on extraneous factual matters without regard to the characteristics, features and state of the relevant parcels.[1]
[1]Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed 7 December 2023, Section 8 – Appeal Issues [2].
The statutory framework
Sections 93(3)(b) and 93(4) of the LGR stipulate what this Court can decide in matters of this type. The relevant subsections are as follows –
(3) The Land Court may decide to—
…
(b) if the appeal is against the decision of the chief executive officer on the owner’s objection to the rating category for the land—
(i) change the rating category for the land; or
(ii) not allow the appeal.
(4) If the Land Court decides to change the rating category for the land, the rating category is taken to have been changed from the start of the period of the rate notice.
After being referred to extracts of the Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in Ostwald Accommodation Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council[2] and the High Court’s reasons in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority,[3] the Court is satisfied the principles of statutory construction apply to construing the Revenue Statement equally as they do to ordinary legislation.
[2][2016] 2 Qd R 14, 33 [98].
[3](1998) 194 CLR 355, 381 [69].
As to the Court’s role in appeals of rating category decisions, this Court said in Realm Business Technology Pty Ltd as Tte v Redland City Council –
The Court’s role is to decide the correct rating category for the [land]. In doing that, I am required to give a practical, sensible, broad and fair reading to the Revenue Statement, applying the orthodox principles of statutory interpretation. I am required to give proper effect to the intended meaning of the words used by the Council in its rating categorisations in the context of the structure and content of the Revenue Statement as a whole.[4] (citations omitted)
[4]Realm Business Technology Pty Ltd as Tte v Redland City Council [2020] QLC 35 [4], citing Western Downs Regional Council v Geldard [2020] QLAC 1.
While this Court is not constrained by the categories urged by the parties, and may consider the application of other categories,[5] it accepts that the parties’ dispute is effectively confined to whether the relevant parcels are either Category 20 or Category 21 of the Revenue Statement.
[5]See, eg, White & Anor v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QLC 51.
Citigold’s submissions
As has been mentioned above, Citigold argues that the relevant parcels should be characterised as Category 21.
“Temporal limit” argument
Citigold submits that on a proper interpretation of the Revenue Statement, the relevant use the subject of consideration is the use undertaken across the relevant rating period. That is, that the Revenue Statement does contemplate or propose to regulate past use or future use of land beyond the rating period.
Counsel for Citigold refer to this as the “temporal limit”.
Citigold says that this interpretation is correct for a number of reasons.
First, it submits that the interpretation accords with a purposive reading of the Revenue Statement. Citigold refers to various extracts from the Revenue Statement to support this point, including:
The purpose of the Revenue Statement is to set out:
o rates and charges to be levied in the financial year …[6]
[6]Exhibit 2, 317 – Revenue Statement 2023-24.
…
This Revenue Statement will apply to all rateable land within the Charters Towers Regional Council area for the 2023-24 financial year.[7]
…
5.1 Differential General Rates
Council has 47 categories of rateable land for 2023-24 as stated and described below. Pursuant to section 80 of the Regulation, the following Differential Rating Categories have been determined having regard to a number of factors, including:
o Land use as determined by Council and the Department.
o Parcels similarly valued which are used for the same or similar purpose and receive similar services.
o Location.
o Valuation.[8]
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid, 318.
Second, it submits that the Charters Towers Regional Council Revenue Policy 2023-24 (Revenue Policy) identifies that the Revenue Statement’s differential rating categories are determined by land use and associated consumption of services for the financial year.
This is argued to be the case because:
(a)section 193(1)(a) of the LGR requires the Revenue Policy to state the “principles that the local government intends to apply for the financial year for – … (i) levying rates and charges”;
(b)the Revenue Policy states that –
land valuations are generally an appropriate basis to achieve equitable distribution of general rates, with differential rating categories determined by land use, ownership. availability of services, consumption of, and demand for services;[9] and
(c)the rating regime is meant to be “equitable”.[10]
[9]Exhibit 12 – Revenue Policy, 1.
[10]Exhibit 12 – Revenue Policy, 1.
Citigold argues that, “self evidently”, a mine that has been “mothballed” for years is not consuming or demanding services in the same way an operational mine would. It submits that the Council’s approach in categorising the relevant parcels as Category 20 does not have appropriate regard to the overriding policy consideration that the rates paid by landowners should be determined by reference to the public services it consumes.
Third, Citigold submits an interpretation that confines land use to the temporal limit accords with a proper reading of Categories 16 to 21 and the definition of “Mine”.
Mine is defined on page 1 of the Revenue Statement as follows –
Land that is the subject of a mining lease (issued pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 1989) or other form of tenure that was used, is used, or intended to be used:
(a) as a mine (or for purposes ancillary or associated with mining such as, for example, washing down, processing, stockpiling, haulage, water storage and rehabilitation); or
(b) in conjunction with other land (the subject of a mining lease or other mine tenure) as part of an integrated mining operation.
Citigold argues that the phrase “was used, is used or is intended to be used” does not alter the present-tense wording in each of the Categories – namely, the qualification that the land “is used or is capable of being used in whole or in part”.
It also submits that the applicable employment threshold of “less than 25 employees” in Category 20 speaks to a scheme established to increase rates reflective of an increase in mining intensity. An interpretation of applying retrospective or future employment levels where those levels are prone to fluctuation over time and no fixed time is prescribed, Citigold submits, would create an uncertain and unattractive rating approach.
Use during the relevant rating period
Citigold, applying their “temporal limit” argument, submits that the relevant parcels were not used as a mine, nor were capable of being used as one, during the relevant rating period.
It says the evidence of the Council’s mining expert, Ms Davis, on this point was incorrect.
At [29] of the Joint Expert Report, Ms Davis expressed the following view:
… the Relevant Land is being used as a mine, in that the purpose is ancilliary [sic] and associated with mining … and is on ‘care and maintenance’ …
… until the approvals are surrendered, and the land rehabilitated, the land is being used as a mine as part of an integrated mining operation.[11]
[11]Exhibit 1, 987 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [29].
Citigold submits that this evidence should be rejected for a variety of reasons. It says that Ms Davis’s conclusion that all land which is the subject of a mining lease is “used” as a mine can be readily put to one side because the existence of a mining lease is a threshold issue under the definition of “Mine”. It says a decision maker must first determine whether there is a mining lease on the land, and then consider if the land is being used as a mine.
It also submits that there could not have been “care and maintenance” on the relevant parcels as concluded by Ms Davis because no activity at all had occurred on the site during the rating period.
Principally, Citigold challenges Ms Davis’s evidence because she did not attend the site in person. Ms Davis said she instead relied on photographs provided by Mr Foord – Citigold’s mining expert – and information contained in various affidavits to form her views about the current use of the relevant parcels.[12]
[12]T2-62.
The Court accepts that the observations of Ms Davis about the use and physical constraints of the relevant parcels should be treated with caution because she did not inspect the site personally.
Citigold relies on Mr Foord’s opinion that there were significant barriers that prevented the mining leases from being “used” as a mine during the relevant period, including issues about:
(a)the need for over $200 million in initial project capital to establish a viable mine;
(b)the underground workings currently requiring dewatering of approximately 2.3 million cubic metres of water;
(c)Citigold needing to construct a 1,200 tonnes per-day-gold processing plant;
(d)there being no people currently hired to work on the mining leases;
(e)there being various legislative matters to be addressed, including risk-management procedures, production of safety control documents and a site “facility description”; and
(f)Citigold being currently characterised on the ASX as a “mine exploration company” and not as a “mine production company”.
Mr Foord was of the opinion that these issues meant the mine was not capable of being brought back into production in a reasonable period.[13] Provided funding was obtained, he estimated the mine would take approximately 15 months before operations could begin again.[14]
[13]Exhibit 2, 994 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord.
[14]Exhibit 2, 988 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord; T2-58, L39–43.
Mr Lynch, the managing director of Citigold, deposed to there being further physical constraints on the land that prevent the establishment of future mining operations. He gave written evidence that the mines currently do not have, inter alia:[15]
(a)connection to electricity on the mines;
(b)serviceable change-rooms, ablution blocks, cap-lamp chargers or equipped heavy-vehicle workshops;
(c)defined second egress and escapeways;
(d)licensed storage facilities for hazardous and blasting materials;
(e)various drilling, blasting, transport, plant and sorting equipment; and
(f)a tailings storage facility with relevant permits and licences.
[15]Exhibit 1, 43–4 – Affidavit of Mark James Lynch affirmed 8 October 2024 [20].
Citigold also does not presently hold an Environmental Authority over the relevant parcels, it having been suspended in May 2024 for non-payment. Ms Davis gave evidence that regaining EA approval could be done quickly by simply paying the fee, however.[16]
[16]T2-60, L22–25.
The rateable valuation threshold
Citigold does not dispute that properties 2, 3, 4 and 5 have a rateable valuation over the required $14,999 for Category 20. They say this is the case because Category 20(a) contemplates valuation over only a singular mining lease in the words “Land which is … a mining lease”.
Citigold submits that Category 20(a) should not apply to properties 1, 5, 6 and 7 because they each comprise a ‘collection’ of mining leases which have been given a combined value exceeding $14,999. Those properties, Citigold submits, are not “… a mining lease”.
Number of employees
Citigold also submits that the relevant parcels do not fit into Category 20 because the mine does not meet the threshold of having “less than 25 employees and/or contractors”.
It says this is the case because the mine has zero employees and would need more than 170 employees if it were to become operational. Citigold points to historical operations which saw 100 employees retained in 2008 to work the gold mine.
The interpretation that “less than 25 employees and/or contractors” should mean more than zero is supported by, Citigold submits, a purposive approach in construing the Revenue Statement to distinguishing between operational and non-operational mines.
It also says that the words imply there are employees.
The Council’s submissions
The thrust of the Council’s submission is that any answer to the following questions in the affirmative, where background matters have been satisfied, will mean the relevant parcels fall into Category 20 –
(a)Were the relevant parcels used as a mine?
(b)Are the relevant parcels used as a mine?
(c)Are the relevant parcels intended to be used as a mine?
(d)Are the relevant parcels capable of being used as a mine?
(a) Were the relevant parcels used as a mine?
The Council submits that it is correct to read the Revenue Statement as conferring a before-rating-period criterion because the definition of “Mine” contains the past tense phrase: “was used”.
It says the Court would be satisfied that the relevant parcels were used as a mine prior to the commencement of the rating period because of the joint evidence of Ms Davis and Mr Foord that all but four of the mining leases had been used as a mine between 1996 and 2015.[17] Indeed, 104,168 ounces of gold were extracted at those sites during that period.[18] The remaining mining leases did not have historical mining in the past, however.[19]
[17]Exhibit 2, 985 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [20].
[18]Ibid.
[19]Exhibit 2, 986 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [23].
It argues that a 2020 technical report exhibited to Mr Lynch’s affidavit gives sufficient overview of past mining operations on the relevant parcels to show that mining was conducted prior to the relevant rating period.[20]
[20]Exhibit 1, 86-9 – Affidavit of Mark James Lynch affirmed 8 October 2024.
(b) Are the relevant parcels used as a mine?
The Council argues that the relevant parcels were also used as mine during the relevant rating period because the definition of “Mine” to include “purposes ancillary or associated with mining” is sufficiently broad enough to capture the ongoing “care and maintenance” of the relevant parcels.
It cites evidence from Mr Lynch where he conceded the relevant parcels are the subject of “care and maintenance”[21] and the evidence from Ms Davis where she viewed the land similarly.[22]
[21]Exhibit 1, 40 – Affidavit of Mark James Lynch [8]; T2-27, L47-48.
[22]Exhibit 2, 987 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [29].
It also refers to the statement of Mr Foord elicited in cross-examination where he accepted that “care and maintenance” was an ongoing activity associated with mining,[23] as well as Ms Davis’s evidence that until rehabilitated, the relevant parcels were part of an ongoing mine by reason of the mining lease approvals continuing to be held.[24]
[23]T2-48, L12–13
[24]Exhibit 1, 987 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [29].
The Council submits that because mining leases set out continuing obligations associated with the mining of land until the project is completed in full (including those regarding rehabilitation), the state of the relevant parcels does not show that mining has ceased. Instead, the Council submits, “care and maintenance” of the mine is a “dormant” operation phase, pending re-establishment of mineral exploration.
Therefore, it is submitted, the relevant parcels were used during the rating period as a “Mine”.
(c) Are the relevant parcels intended to be used as a mine?
The Council argues that an intention to use the land as a mine – as expressed in the definition of “Mine” – necessarily requires the Court to look beyond the current rating period. It says that this may involve either an objective or subjective test, but that both are satisfied.
Mr Lynch accepted that the Citigold website contained statements such as, inter alia:
We aim to restart this world class gold mine, possibly Australia’s largest high-grade gold deposit and currently seeking a funding partner
…
With a large gold production goal, restarting the mine is the number one focus
…
We are restarting a world class mine …
He said that he was “a hundred per cent confident it [the mine] will get funded and will get built”[25] and that the plan was to “bring it out of suspension”.[26] The Stockholm, open pit mine, originally shut down due to unstable ground and dormant since 2000, is not the subject of any timetable expectation for reopening, but neither has it been abandoned.
[25]T2-31, L5–6.
[26]T2-28, L19.
Mr Lynch affirmed various statements from Citigold’s 2024 Annual Report that the company had a resolute commitment and determination to advance and ultimately restart the mine.
The Council says that this shows a subjective intention to eventually undertake mining operations on the relevant parcels; it also says this intention was objectively shown by Citigold continuing to hold the mining leases.
There is no evidence, however, as to what intention, if any, existed for the mines to be established within the rating period.
(d) Are the relevant parcels capable of being used as a mine?
The Council says that this criterion also requires one to look beyond the relevant rating period.
It argues that the question in this case is not whether the landowner is capable of using the land as a mine, but whether the land itself is capable of being used as a mine. It also says the fact that Citigold does not hold the requisite capital to start the mine is irrelevant, and that the criterion is satisfied because the experts agree the land is capable of being used for the purpose of a mine within 18-24 months once funding is established.
In the event the Council’s broad interpretation of the Revenue Statement fails, it says the relevant parcels possessed all necessary attributes, characteristics, advantages and licences that would permit it be used as a mine within the future. Alternatively, it says that dewatering can commence shortly after funding is obtained and, because dewatering is an activity associated with mining, mining could occur within the rating period.
Number of employees
The Council submits that the employee threshold in Category 20 ought to apply for a variety of reasons.
First, it says the workers criterion is “referable” to the word “Land” in Category 20; this must, the Council submits, relate to the number of workers on the land during the relevant rating period.
Secondly, and similarly, the workers criterion is “referable” to the word “Mine” in Category 20; this must be construed against the definition of “Mine” which is “land that is the subject of the mining lease”. For the same reasons, the Council submits that the number of workers on the land during the relevant rating period ought to be considered.
Thirdly, the Council says that Citigold’s interpretation about historical worker numbers would result in absurd outcomes, such as asking when the highest or lowest worker numbers should be assessed, or how the local authority could know that figure.
Lastly, it submits that various “key management” were on Citigold’s payroll such that the mine does have employees.[27]
[27]See T2-38, L37–48; T2-39, L1–9.
In any event, it submitted that Citigold’s argument that zero employees was not “less than 25 employees” was unattractive when considering the Revenue Statement.
Resolution
The “temporal limit” argument
Consistent with the approach taken in Geldard v Western Downs Regional Council (No 2)[28] that in circumstances of ambiguity in a revenue statement, the outcome ought to be resolved in the ratepayer’s favour, the Court accepts Citigold’s proposition that there should be a “temporal limit” when considering land categorisations; otherwise it would necessitate asking how far back or how far forward one must look to ascertain the true use of the land.
[28](2019) 40 QLCR 87.
Indeed, interpreting the Revenue Statement as permitting rates to be imposed on land that was used for, for example, a vastly different purpose five years prior would be contrary to the purpose of the regime. The past use of the land does not, it seems to this Court, have a meaningful bearing on the current use of the land.
Similarly, an interpretation that a landowner can intend to use the land as a mine in five years’ time, even if it possesses those aspirations during the rating period, also seems to be outside the scope of the Revenue Statement. Consistent with that framing, the phrase “intended to be used”, as it appears in the definition of “Mine”, seems to require the existence of both an “intention” within the rating period as well as an intention for the land “to be used as a mine” within the rating period.
It is unnecessary, therefore, for this Court to consider further the Council’s points on whether Citigold used or intended to use the relevant parcels as a mine beyond the relevant rating period.
On a proper construction then, one must consider whether the land was used, is used, or is intended to be used as a Mine within the rating period.
Were the relevant parcels “used as” a mine during the rating period?
The joint experts agreed that the project was not extracting gold for sale for the period in question.[29]
[29]Exhibit 2, 986 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [26].
Mr Foord’s expert opinion is that the land could not be used as a mine because of technical barriers concerning the capability of the land.
The Council argues that the land was “used as” a Mine during the rating period in two ways: firstly, by merely holding mining leases and, secondly, by reason of the relevant parcels being in “care and maintenance”.
Each argument will be addressed seriatim.
Is merely holding a mining lease over the land capable of it being “used” as a mine?
Ms Davis expressed the opinion that until mining lease approvals are surrendered and the land rehabilitated, the land is being used as a mine as part of an integrated mining operation.[30]
[30]Exhibit 2, 987 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord [29]; T2-65, L44–48; T2-66, L1–28.
In cross-examination, Counsel for Citigold suggested to Ms Davis that mining lease approvals were valuable, and not readily disposed of.[31] Counsel also raised that mining leases may be held for any number of years.[32]
[31]T2-66, L36–48; T2-67, L1–30.
[32]Ibid.
Evidently, active mining lease approvals were, and continue to be, held over the relevant parcels.
The Court accepts that the structure of the definition of “Mine” in the Revenue Statement presupposes that there is first a mining lease over the land and, second, that the land is used as a mine.
To take a contrary view of the Revenue Statement, out of the context of Category 21(a), would fail to apply a natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in that framing.
Is “care and maintenance” a part of the “use” of a mine?
Both experts accepted that “care and maintenance” is ordinarily an activity associated with mining. The following exchange occurred as part of cross-examination of Mr Foord –
MR WYLIE: Can you just describe – there’s been evidence about the mine being in “care and maintenance”.
MR FOORD: Yeah.
MR WYLIE: Can you just describe for his Honour, what does that mean?
MR FOORD: Well, “care and maintenance” can mean several things. A mining lease can be under care and maintenance in that perhaps the mine hasn’t even started yet, there’s no – just a bare paddock …[33]
…
MR WYLIE: With respect to care and maintenance, that’s part of an ongoing and enduring obligation under a mining lease?
MR FOORD: It is, yes. Yes. Yes.
MR WYLIE: Would you accept that it’s an activity that’s associated with mining?
MR FOORD: Yes.[34]
[33]T2-47, L33–42.
[34]T2-48, L23–30.
Mr Foord’s proposition is supported by authority.
In determining whether the respondent was carrying on “mining operations” when its mine was closed down and it was not extracting ore from its mine, the High Court in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill South Limited[35] (FCT v Broken Hill South) found that it was open for the taxation board to conclude activities in connection with a mine, such as provision and maintenance of the plant or work connected with the protection and safety of the mine and mining rights, were “mining operations”. This was so even though activities at the mine were confined to its preservation: watchmen were employed to protect the mine against vandalism and the outbreak of fire; engine drivers would periodically run engine pumps to keep the water below a certain level.[36]
[35](1941) 65 CLR 150.
[36]Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill South Limited (1941) 65 CLR 150, 160.
Also similar to the present case, the miners in FCT v Broken Hill South intended to re-open operations once market conditions permitted; the extraction of the ore was observed as “admittedly a matter for the indefinite future”.[37]
[37]Ibid 158.
Relevantly, McTiernan J observed –
No-one would doubt that activities, such as those done at the mine, come within the scope of mining operations when done in or about a mine from which ore is being won or which is temporarily closed down but with the expectation of a resumption of the work of extracting ore. But it is said in the present case that so much time had elapsed since any ore was won from the mine, and the prospect of such work being done again was so remote and indefinite, that it was not reasonable to find that the work done by the company formed part of or was ancillary to any set of operations usually carried on to extract ore from the mine, and was not, therefore, mining operations. The correctness of that conclusion depends on the question whether there was any probable ground for anticipating that economic and other conditions would within a reasonable time enable the extraction of ore from the mine to be resumed. It is purely a question of fact whether there was any probable ground for regarding the work as preparatory to the eventual opening of the mine … In my opinion the evidence given about the economic factors which are likely to affect mining … afford a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the opening up of the mine may not be so long deferred that no practical or real connection can be discerned between the work done at the mine and the eventual extraction of ore.[38]
[38]Ibid 158–9.
In response to submissions that a company would only be carrying on mining operations when it was preparing the mine for excavation or maintaining the mine with a view to resuming excavations in a material time, Williams J acknowledged that “periods of being closed down are amongst the vicissitudes of mining”.[39]
[39]Ibid 161.
On review of the High Court’s reasons referred above and the evidence of both mining experts retained in this matter, this Court is satisfied that “care and maintenance” is a “use” of land as a mine or for purposes ancillary or associated with mining.
Were the relevant parcels on “care and maintenance” such that they were used as a mine?
As this Court is satisfied “care and maintenance” is part of a mine’s use, it must be considered whether the relevant parcels were under “care and maintenance”.
Mr Lynch said expressly that the mine is currently in “care and maintenance”.[40] Mr Foord also gave evidence that the surface areas of the mine were under “care and maintenance”, notwithstanding the old underground workings were underwater.[41]
[40]Exhibit 1, 40 – Affidavit of Mark James Lynch [8]; T2-27, L48–49.
[41]Exhibit 2, 988 – Joint Expert Report of Ms Davis and Mr Foord.
However, in written submissions, Counsel for Citigold state that no activity or change in disturbance occurred on the relevant parcels during the rating period.
This Court accepts that a parcel of land that sits idly, with no activities for care, security or management is not typically considered in “care and maintenance”. In McClymont v Solar Silicon Resources Group Pte Ltd this Court found that the expression “care and maintenance” itself implies activity.[42]
[42]McClymont v Solar Silicon Resources Group Pte Ltd [2016] QLC 67 [34].
Similarly, in Orr v LakeCoal Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) Russell SC DCJ defined “care and maintenance” as the following –
“Care and maintenance” describes a state of operations at a mine site where there is no activity to mine ore or material but the mine is maintained. Activity at a mine on care and maintenance is generally limited to monitoring the mine and undertaking maintenance activities to ensure that the mine remains in a safe, stable state. The purpose of this is to allow companies to recommence mining if the economic viability of the mine improves in the future.[43]
[43]Orr v LakeCoal Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 360 [64].
What can be gleaned from the High Court’s decision in FCT v Broken Hill South and the other authorities is that for “care and maintenance” to be considered a part of mining, there needs to be activity or work done connected with the use of the mine. Something needs to occur that contributes to the pursuance of the mine’s existence.
This Court accepts that the relevant parcels are, and were during the rating period, in significant disrepair. Indeed, Mr Foord gave evidence that “there wasn’t too much maintenance carried out” when he saw the relevant parcels.[44]
[44]T2-48, L17–21.
After an application was heard shortly before the substantive hearing, the Court was shown photographs of the relevant parcels taken by Mr Foord on a recent site inspection.[45] These photographs showed overgrown access and egress roads, non-repairable emergency equipment and ventilation fans, a graffitied workshop and similarly dirty office, change room and first-aid buildings.
[45]Exhibit 2, 1009 – Statement of Gerry Foord dated 5 August 2025.
Also tendered were pictures of open pits leading to the underground parts of the mines. These areas appeared to hold considerable volumes of water.
However, the fact the mine remained in disrepair or a state of non-operation for the duration of the rating period is not in itself persuasive that it was not in “care and maintenance”.
Mr Lynch gave evidence that his brother lives in Charters Towers and, although not employed, would keep “a bit of a general eye on things”.[46] Mr Lynch answered this in response to a question whether there was a caretaker or anybody who looks after the premises.
[46]T2-39, L11–17.
At a minimum, this Court is satisfied that Mr Lynch’s brother keeping an eye on the relevant parcels, whether intermittently or not, is enough to show that Citigold undertakes some monitoring of the mine.
It is not for this Court to opine on the degree of activity that occurred on the relevant parcels other than to state that activity in pursuance of a later re-opening of the mine did, in fact, occur such that it meant the land was used as a mine.
This may be compared with a complete abandonment of the relevant parcels.
It is this Court’s view that the relevant parcels, therefore, were used as a mine during the rating period.
Were the relevant parcels “intended to be used” as a mine during the rating period?
As this Court has found that the relevant parcels were “used” during the rating period under “care and maintenance” as a mine, it is not required for present purposes to make any ruling on this point.
The rateable valuation threshold
Citigold submits that “a mining lease” in Category 20(a) excludes valuations over land which comprise multiple mining leases.
Because s 32C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that words in the singular include the plural and vice-versa, it is not persuasive that “mining lease” should only mean a singular mining lease.
Because each of the relevant parcels have been valued over $14,999,[47] it is clear that the land, issued with a combined valuation or not, has a rateable valuation greater than $14,999 for the purpose of Category 20.
[47]Exhibit 4 – Signed LGA Certificate of Scott Greensill [2]–[5].
Number of Employees
A residual question left for this Court is whether the relevant parcels satisfy the employee threshold in Category 20, being that the mine must have “less than 25 employees and/or contractors”.
Exhibit 8 shows that, at the least, the appellant had one employee, the Chief Financial Officer, during the relevant period. It also had four named consultants who would appear to be contractors for present purposes. This satisfies the requirement in Category 20 that there be less than 25 employees and/or contractors.
For these reasons, the appeal is not allowed.
Costs
The parties will be heard in relation to costs.
Order
The appeal is not allowed.
0