Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd - [2024] QSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 137

PARTIES:

PETER LOCKSLEY COMISKEY

(first applicant)
AND

DENISE MARY COMISKEY

(second applicant)

v
FAIRHILL COKING COAL PTY LTD ACN 155 409 199

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 7410 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application filed 10 June 2024

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2024, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

31 July 2024

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS THAT:

(1) the application is dismissed; and

(2) the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – MINING LEASES AND LICENCES APART FROM STATUTE – ROYALTIES – where the respondent applied for a mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (the Act) covering land owned by the applicants – where, by written agreement in August 2020 (the CA), the parties agreed the amount of compensation payable to the applicants in respect of the proposed mining lease as required under the Act – where the CA required the respondent to pay the applicants $7.45 million in two tranches, including $4 million within 40 days of the grant of the mining lease – where the mining lease was granted and the respondent failed to pay either tranche by its due date – where, via email correspondence on 3 April 2023 (the April Agreement), the parties agreed a process where the respondent would pay the outstanding $7.45 million (and interest on the $4 million) by 28 April 2023, or, if the respondent failed to do so, the parties would renegotiate the compensation payable to the applicants – where the respondent paid the outstanding $7.45 million (and interest on the $4 million) on 20 September 2023 – whether, given the CA and the parties’ April Agreement to renegotiate the compensation payable to the applicants, compensation is determined or there is an agreement as to compensation for the purposes of the Act

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – MINING LEASES AND LICENCES APART FROM STATUTE – ROYALTIES – where, by ss 363(2)(f)-(g) of the Act, the Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine or review compensation and to enforce any agreement or determination as to compensation under the Act – whether the proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), s 5(2)

Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 279(1), s 283A, s 283B, ss 363(2)(f)-(g)

Freedom Willetton Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) [2021] WASCA 38, cited

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited

COUNSEL:

J Horton KC, with W Isdale, for the applicants
G Thompson KC, with A Nicholas, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Suthers Taylor for the applicants
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

The applicants (the Comiskeys) own a rural property at Capella known as “Old Mount…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd 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: [2024] QSC 137
Decision Date: 31 July 2024, ex tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd concerns a dispute over the compensation payable for a mining lease granted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The applicants, Comiskey, are the landowners, and the respondent, Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd, is the mining company. The primary issue is whether the compensation payable under the Act is determined, or if there is an agreement between the parties regarding compensation, which would affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the matter.

The legal issue before the court was whether the compensation payable for the mining lease was determined under the Act, or if there was an agreement between the parties as to compensation, which would then shift the exclusive jurisdiction to the Land Court under sections 363(2)(f)-(g) of the Act. This jurisdictional question was critical because it would determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to hear the case or if the matter should be referred to the Land Court.

The court considered the initial written agreement between the parties in August 2020, which set out the compensation amount, and the subsequent email correspondence on 3 April 2023, where the parties agreed to a renegotiated payment process. The court found that the initial agreement did not fully determine compensation, and the April Agreement constituted an agreement as to compensation, thereby vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Land Court. Consequently, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The judgment of the court was that the application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding. This outcome underscores the importance of the jurisdictional framework established by the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) in determining the appropriate forum for resolving disputes related to compensation for mining leases.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS THAT:

(1) the application is dismissed; and

(2) the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.

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.

CITATION:	Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 137
PARTIES:	PETER LOCKSLEY COMISKEY (first applicant) AND DENISE MARY COMISKEY (second applicant) v FAIRHILL COKING COAL PTY LTD ACN 155 409 199 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 7410 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application filed 10 June 2024
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2024, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	31 July 2024
JUDGE:	Bradley J
ORDER:	THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS THAT: (1) the application is dismissed; and (2) the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – MINING LEASES AND LICENCES APART FROM STATUTE – ROYALTIES – where the respondent applied for a mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (the Act) covering land owned by the applicants – where, by written agreement in August 2020 (the CA), the parties agreed the amount of compensation payable to the applicants in respect of the proposed mining lease as required under the Act – where the CA required the respondent to pay the applicants $7.45 million in two tranches, including $4 million within 40 days of the grant of the mining lease – where the mining lease was granted and the respondent failed to pay either tranche by its due date – where, via email correspondence on 3 April 2023 (the April Agreement), the parties agreed a process where the respondent would pay the outstanding $7.45 million (and interest on the $4 million) by 28 April 2023, or, if the respondent failed to do so, the parties would renegotiate the compensation payable to the applicants – where the respondent paid the outstanding $7.45 million (and interest on the $4 million) on 20 September 2023 – whether, given the CA and the parties’ April Agreement to renegotiate the compensation payable to the applicants, compensation is determined or there is an agreement as to compensation for the purposes of the Act ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – MINING LEASES AND LICENCES APART FROM STATUTE – ROYALTIES – where, by ss 363(2)(f)-(g) of the Act, the Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine or review compensation and to enforce any agreement or determination as to compensation under the Act – whether the proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Land Court Act 2000 (Qld), s 5(2) Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 279(1), s 283A, s 283B, ss 363(2)(f)-(g) Freedom Willetton Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) [2021] WASCA 38, cited Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37, cited
COUNSEL:	J Horton KC, with W Isdale, for the applicants G Thompson KC, with A Nicholas, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Suthers Taylor for the applicants McCullough Robertson for the respondent