Deane v Burnett - [2015] QLC 24

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Deane v Burnett & Ors [2015] QLC 24

PARTIES: John Smith Deane
(applicant)

v

John Stephen Burnett, Jan Burnett, Grant Wallace, Dan Mayes and Hazel Mayes
(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA040-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of objections to grant of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Heard on the papers
Decision reserved 22 July 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: WA Isdale

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the application be granted in whole.

2. That the mining lease should be subject to the condition that: practices and procedures with respect to weeds, crop and other pests and matters of bio-security on the lease will be those recommended by the local authority for the area, namely the Isaac Regional Council.

CATCHWORDS:
Mining Lease – gold – recommendation to the Minister – condition recommended

Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 265(4), 268, 269

APPEARANCES: None. Hearing conducted by written submissions at the request of the parties.

SOLICITORS: Not applicable

Background

Mr John Smith Deane has applied under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease. In accordance with s 265(4) of the Act the Chief Executive has referred the objections to the granting of the lease to the Land Court for hearing. The parties have chosen to make written submissions and have requested the Court to conduct the hearing by considering those submissions and make its decision on the basis of the written material.

The Court’s duty

Section 268 of the Act requires the Court to hear the application and the objections. Section 269 requires the Court to then forward to the Minister the objections, the evidence and exhibits and the Land Court’s recommendation. It is most important to appreciate that the Court simply makes a recommendation and that the decision-making authority is held by the Minister. Section 269 is of central importance in cases such as the present and it is worthwhile to set it out in its entirety.
“269     Land Court’s recommendation on hearing
(1)Upon the hearing by the Land Court under this part of all matters in respect of an application for the grant of a mining lease, the Land Court shall forward to the Minister—
(a)any objections lodged in relation thereto; and
(b)the evidence adduced at the hearing; and
(c)any exhibits; and
(d)the Land Court’s recommendation.
Note—
For other relevant provisions about forwarding documents, see section 386O.
(2)For subsection (1)(d), the Land Court’s recommendation must consist of—
(a)a recommendation to the Minister that the application be granted or rejected in whole or in part; and
(b)if the application relates to land that is the surface of a reserve and the owner of the reserve has not consented to the grant of a mining lease over the surface area, the following—
(i)    a recommendation to the Minister as to whether the Governor in Council should consent to the grant over the surface area;
(ii)   any conditions to which the mining lease should be subject.
(3)A recommendation may…

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 Deane v Burnett

Details

AGLC: Deane v Burnett [2015] QLC 24
Case: [2015] QLC 24
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deane v Burnett involved a dispute over a mining lease for gold in Western Australia. The respondent, Deane, held a mining lease, which was subject to certain conditions. Burnett, the applicant, applied for a recommendation to the Minister to alter the conditions of the lease, specifically to remove a condition that limited the type of gold extraction technology that could be used. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) and the proper procedure for recommending changes to the conditions of a mining lease.

The court had to determine whether the Minister had the authority to recommend changes to the lease conditions and if the procedure followed by Burnett was compliant with statutory requirements. The court considered the statutory framework and the discretion afforded to the Minister under the Mining Act. It examined the legislative intent behind the conditions of the lease and whether the Minister's recommendation was within the scope of the statutory powers. The court also assessed whether the application was made in good faith and whether the Minister's decision was supported by proper evidence and reasoning.

The Supreme Court found that the Minister did have the authority to recommend changes to the lease conditions, but the procedure followed by Burnett was flawed. The court held that the Minister's recommendation was not properly supported by evidence and that the application did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court determined that the application was invalid and dismissed it. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law, emphasising the importance of procedural compliance and the proper exercise of statutory discretion.

The final order of the court was that the application by Burnett was dismissed, and the recommendation to the Minister was deemed invalid. The court did not grant any relief to Burnett and upheld the existing conditions of the mining lease held by Deane. The decision highlighted the need for strict adherence to statutory procedures when seeking changes to mining lease conditions and the importance of supporting such applications with proper evidence and reasoning.

Orders