Deimel v Cochrane & Anor

[2014] QLC 8

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Deimel v Cochrane & Anor  [2014] QLC 8

PARTIES:

Wolfgang Deimel
(applicant)

v

Howard Christopher Cochrane and Loretta Valerie Cochrane
(respondents)

FILE NO:

MRA462-13

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for determination of compensation

DELIVERED ON:

12 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Heard on the Papers
Decision reserved on 19 February 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1. Compensation is determined in the amount of $2,000 per annum under s 281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

2. Under s 281(4)(e) an additional amount of compensation is determined in the amount of 20% of the aggregate amount determined under s 281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

3.    The applicant shall pay the respondents the total compensation of $2,400 per annum in advance of the year to which it relates with the first payment being made within 30 days of the renewal of the mining lease.

4.    The parties are to bear their own costs of the present proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 279, s 281

Mining Lease – renewal – determination of compensation

Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 10 March 1998)
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-1993) 14 QLCR 139
Smith v Cameron (1986-1987) 11 QLCR 64

APPEARANCES:

The parties made written submissions and requested that the Court determine the matter on those papers.

Background

1. On 13 September 2013 the Mining Registrar for the Brisbane District, Southern Region referred to the Court the matter of compensation for the renewal of Mining Lease (ML) 5933. This action was in accordance with s 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act). The Mining Registrar has taken this step because compensation must be determined before a mining lease is granted or renewed and the holder of the mining tenement, the applicant, and the landowners, the respondents, have been unable to reach agreement on the compensation which the applicant should pay to the landowners in accordance with the Act.

2. This matter came before the Court on 19 February 2014 when the applicant appeared in person and Mr Cochrane attended by means of a telephone link. The Court asked the parties whether they would be able to reach an agreement between themselves in regard to the compensation and they advised that this was not possible. They both requested that the Court determine the matter of compensation on the basis of the written material that they had provided to the Court. While the parties, if making their own agreement, are free to compromise with each other in a way mutually acceptable to them, the Court is more limited in what it may do and must decide the case in accordance with the Act and on the material which the parties have chosen to provide it with. The Court’s scope for action is more limited than that which the parties would enjoy when negotiating privately but is that which the law gives to it and its…