Colon Peaks Mining Co v Council of the Wollondilly Shire - [1911] HCA 70

13 CLR 438

COLON PEAKS MINING CO. NO LIABILITY

THE COUNCIL OF THE WOLLONDILLY

BARTLETT AND ANOTHER

THE COUNCIL OF THE WOLLONDILLY

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Local Government-Rates-Rating - of nine-Lease from Crown of mine on private

lands - Reservation of minerals, Effect of -Mine situate on Crown land - Method of valuation-Unimproved capital value of land or output of mine- SYDNEY,

Construction of Statute And" read as' or" Meaning of "land 33 - Natural Aug. 18;

meaning limited by context-Local Government Act 1906 (N.S.W.) (No. 56), Nov. 20, 21,

secs. 132 (1), 144 Mining on Private Lands Act 1894 (N.S.W.) (57 Vict. 22; Dec. 21.

The appellants were the lessees from the Crown, under the Mining oil Griffith C.J.,

Private Lands Act 1894, of mines situated on land which had been granted to M. by the Crown, subject to a reservation of all minerals. Under the lease the appellants had the exclusive right to occupy a portion of the surface, and to mine under the land. Land tax upon the whole of the land had been assessed and paid by M.

13 CLR 439

Sec. 132 of the Local Government Act 1906 provides that, in the case of a mine situated on private land, the unimproved capital value of such land shall be assessed at the amount of the capital sum for which the fee simple estate in the land would sell, or, in the case of mines other than coal or shale mines, at the option of the Council, the unimproved capital value of the mines shall be assessed upon the annual output of the mine.

Held by Griffith C.J. and Barton J. (O'Connor J. dissenting,) that, under sec. 132 (2) (c), in the case of a lease from the Crown of a mine situated on private land, a distinction was intended to be drawn between the words "land" and "mine," and that the rate payable by the appellants as lessees of the mine should be assessed, under sub-sec. (b), upon the annual output of the mine, and could not be assessed, under sub-sec. (1), upon the unimproved capital value of the land inclusive of the minerals.

Where land is granted by the Crown with a reservation of all minerals, the minerals are not Crown lands within the meaning of sec. 132 (2).

The word " and" cannot be read as "or" in the expression mine situate on Crown land and held from the Crown in sec. 132 (2) (b).

Decision of the Supreme Court Bartlett v. Wollondilly Shire Council, 10 S.R. (N.S.W.), 767, reversed.

APPEALS from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

These were two appeals by special leave from the decision of the Supreme Court on special cases. The question raised by appeal in each case was the proper method of assessment, under sec. 132 of the Local Government Act 1906, of portions of land held and used as metalliferous mines by the appellants, as lessees from the Crown…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Colon Peaks Mining Co v Council of the Wollondilly Shire

Details

AGLC: Colon Peaks Mining Co v Council of the Wollondilly Shire [1911] HCA 70
Case: [1911] HCA 70
Decision Date: 21 December 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Colon Peaks Mining Co v Council of the Wollondilly Shire* involved appeals to the High Court of Australia from decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning the method of assessing rates on mining properties. The appellants were lessees from the Crown of mines situated on private land, where the Crown had reserved all minerals. The dispute centred on whether the unimproved capital value of the land, including the minerals, or the annual output of the mine should form the basis for calculating the rates payable by the mining lessees.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation of section 132 of the *Local Government Act 1906* (NSW), specifically how it applied to mines situated on private land where minerals were reserved to the Crown. The court had to determine whether the "unimproved capital value of the land" could be assessed to include the value of the reserved minerals, or if the assessment for the lessees should be based on the "annual output of the mine" as provided for in the Act. A further question arose regarding the construction of the phrase "mine situate on Crown land and held from the Crown" in section 132(2)(b).

The High Court, in a majority decision (Griffith C.J. and Barton J., with O'Connor J. dissenting), held that section 132 of the *Local Government Act 1906* intended to draw a distinction between the "land" and the "mine" when dealing with leases from the Crown on private land with mineral reservations. The Court reasoned that where minerals are reserved to the Crown, they are not considered part of the private land for rating purposes. Consequently, the lessees of the mine, who held a separate tenement from the Crown, should have their rates assessed based on the annual output of the mine, as stipulated in section 132(2)(b), rather than the unimproved capital value of the land which included the minerals. The Court also clarified that the word "and" in the phrase "situate on Crown land and held from the Crown" could not be read as "or," reinforcing the distinction between different types of land tenure.

The appeals were allowed, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were reversed. The High Court ordered that the assessments made by the Council were invalid and that the rates should have been assessed according to the provisions relating to the annual output of the mine.

Orders