Cross v Barrett

[2020] QLC 6

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cross v Barrett [2020] QLC 6

PARTIES:

Peter Raymond Cross
(applicant)

v

Rodney Keith Barrett
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA082-19

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining claim

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 20 December 2019

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

MEMBER:

PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER:

I determine compensation in respect of MC 70598 in the sum of Three Hundred and Sixty-Three Dollars ($363) per annum for the term of the renewal.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the parties were referred to the Court for a compensation determination for the term of the renewal of a mining claim – where the Court determined compensation on the basis of limited evidence – whether the evidence of a previous compensation agreement was instructive for determining the amount of compensation – whether an amount for the time the landholder required to inspect the property should be included in compensation determination

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85, s 85A

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

1. Rodney Barrett owns Lot 11 on CLM597, a cattle property located in The Gemfields. 

1. Peter Cross holds Mining Claim 70598 on Lot 11, an area of 0.7 ha. He accesses his claim by a track from Graveshill Road. The part of the access track that crosses Lot 11 is 1.2 km long and 3 m wide, a total area of 0.51 ha.

1. Mr Cross wants to renew his mining claim for a further 10 years.

1. As the parties could not agree on what compensation was payable, the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy referred this matter to the Court for a determination, pursuant to Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) s 85A as in force at the date of the renewal application.

1. There is a long line of cases in which, faced with no evidence of loss and little engagement from the parties,  the Land Court has simply applied a formula to the question of compensation; $10/ha for a mining lease or claim and $5/ha for access. Unfortunately, this approach may have created the impression that landowners are entitled to compensation simply for the presence of a mining lease or claim, in the form of a licence or rent.

1. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be entitled to compensation, a landowner must have either been deprived of possession of the surface of the land, suffered a diminution of the value of the land or improvements thereon, or incurred loss or expense as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining claim.[1] If a landowner cannot show deprivation of possession, a diminution in value, or loss or expense, then the landowner is not entitled to compensation.

   [1]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85(7).

1. Mr Barrett submits that he should receive compensation of $2,500 per year. He justifies that amount by reference to:

1.          The dust generated on the access road.

2.          The presence…