Deimel v Phelps (No 2) - [2019] QLC 21

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Deimel v Phelps & Anor (No 2) [2019] QLC 21

PARTIES: Wolfgang Deimel
(applicant)

v

Mark Harry Phelps and Christine Phelps
(respondents)

FILE NOs: MRA369-17
MRA150-18

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Applications for costs

DELIVERED ON: 12 April 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 8 March 2019

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: PA Smith

ORDERS:
As regards both MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and EPM 25185 (MRA150-18):

The applications by the respondent for costs are allowed. 1.

The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents the total sum ofOne Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) for costs with respect to both matters. 2.

To remove any doubt, should there be dispute between the parties as to the payment of costs, 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be with respect to MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be costs with respect to EPM 25185 (MRA150-18). 3.

The applicant is to pay the total sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) to the respondents within thirty (30) days of the handing down of this decision.4.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – JURISDICTION – where the Land Court made determinations as to compensation for resource tenures – where s 34 of the Land Court Act 2000 applies – where s 281(7) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 applies – where the considerations under both statutes are essentially the same – where the Land Court has a discretion – where the respondents claim costs of professional fees as outlays

Land Court Act 2000, s 34
Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014, s 97
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 281(7)

BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd (2009) 30 QLCR 140; [2009] QLAC 5, followed
BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) 30 QLCR 173; [2009] QLAC 8, followed
Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2019] QLC 4, cited
Starr v Appleton [2009] QLC 102, followed
Wyatt v Albert Shire Council [1987] 1 Qd R 486; (1986) 61 LGRA 116; [1986] QPLR 409, followed

APPEARANCES: W Deimel, the applicant (self-represented)
M Phelps, a respondent (self-represented), for the respondents

Background

On 6 February 2019, I delivered my decisions on two closely related matters before the Court involving the same parties. Mr Deimel (the applicant in each matter), who conducts mining operations, sought determinations of compensation payable to Mr and Mrs Phelps (the respondents in each matter) with respect to two mining tenures.

The first file before the Court (MRA369-17) relates to Mining Lease Application 100140 (MLA 100140). The applicant sought a determination of compensation payable to the respondents in order to allow MLA 100140 to be granted.

The second file, MRA150-18, relates to an already granted exploration permit for minerals (EPM…

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 Deimel v Phelps (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Deimel v Phelps (No 2) [2019] QLC 21
Case: [2019] QLC 21
Decision Date: 12 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Deimel v Phelps (No 2), the Land Court was tasked with determining the costs associated with compensation for resource tenures, following determinations made by the Court. The case involved two distinct matters: MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and EPM 25185 (MRA150-18). The respondents sought costs related to professional fees, which they claimed should be considered outlays under the statutes in question.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the applicability of sections 34 of the Land Court Act 2000 and 281(7) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court needed to determine whether these sections permitted the Land Court to award costs and whether the considerations under both statutes were essentially the same, thereby allowing for the exercise of the court's discretion in awarding costs.

The Land Court found that both statutes provided for a similar consideration of costs, allowing for the exercise of discretion in awarding costs. Given the respondents' claims, the court deemed it appropriate to award the costs in question. The court concluded that the applicant was to pay the respondents the total sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) for costs with respect to both matters. The court ordered that 50% of this sum was to be attributed to each matter, to be paid within thirty days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

As regards both MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and EPM 25185 (MRA150-18):

The applications by the respondent for costs are allowed. 1.

The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents the total sum ofOne Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) for costs with respect to both matters. 2.

To remove any doubt, should there be dispute between the parties as to the payment of costs, 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be with respect to MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be costs with respect to EPM 25185 (MRA150-18). 3.

The applicant is to pay the total sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) to the respondents within thirty (30) days of the handing down of this decision.4.

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:	Deimel v Phelps & Anor (No 2) [2019] QLC 21
PARTIES:	Wolfgang Deimel (applicant)
v
Mark Harry Phelps and Christine Phelps (respondents)
FILE NOs:	MRA369-17 MRA150-18
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Applications for costs
DELIVERED ON:	12 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 8 March 2019
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	PA Smith
ORDERS:	As regards both MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and EPM 25185 (MRA150-18): The applications by the respondent for costs are allowed. 1. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents the total sum ofOne Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) for costs with respect to both matters. 2. To remove any doubt, should there be dispute between the parties as to the payment of costs, 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be with respect to MLA 100140 (MRA369-17) and 50% of the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) is deemed to be costs with respect to EPM 25185 (MRA150-18). 3. The applicant is to pay the total sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($1,760) to the respondents within thirty (30) days of the handing down of this decision.4.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – JURISDICTION – where the Land Court made determinations as to compensation for resource tenures – where s 34 of the Land Court Act 2000 applies – where s 281(7) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 applies – where the considerations under both statutes are essentially the same – where the Land Court has a discretion – where the respondents claim costs of professional fees as outlays Land Court Act 2000, s 34 Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014, s 97 Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 281(7) BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd (2009) 30 QLCR 140; [2009] QLAC 5, followed BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) 30 QLCR 173; [2009] QLAC 8, followed Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2019] QLC 4, cited Starr v Appleton [2009] QLC 102, followed Wyatt v Albert Shire Council [1987] 1 Qd R 486; (1986) 61 LGRA 116; [1986] QPLR 409, followed
APPEARANCES:	W Deimel, the applicant (self-represented) M Phelps, a respondent (self-represented), for the respondents