Dempster v Logan - [2008] QLC 96

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Dempster & Anor v Logan & Anor [2008] QLC 0096

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 95085 – Application by Ian Gilbert Dempster and Sidney Douglas Cuddy for determination of compensation payable to Jock C Logan and Janice L Logan
FILE NO:MLC00034/2008
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  22 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr FW Windridge, Judicial Registrar

ORDER/S:1. I determine total compensation under s.281 in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100).
2. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100) to the landowners within 2 months of notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.

CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 281, 283(a)

Smith v Cameron [1986-87] 11 QLCR 64

Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd [1992-93] 14 QLCR 139
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10.03.98) unreported

COUNSEL: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers

Background

The applicants Ian Gilbert Dempster and Sidney Douglas Cuddy (the miners) seek the renewal of Mining Lease 95085 in the Winton District. The application for renewal for a term of 7 years was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar on 31 October 2007. The lease is granted for the purpose of mining for opal. Since lodgement of the original application for renewal, an application for assignment of the lease to Ian Gilbert Dempster has been lodged, and this order will apply to that person only.

The lease is located on Lot 78 on OL363. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The lease is over an area of 1.5091ha. For the purpose of this determination, I round off the area to 2ha.

The Act

Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed at the office of the Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In this instance, no agreement has been lodged with the Registrar and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination.

The matters which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s.281(3) of the Act. Although s.281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. The following Land Court case Reports may offer some guidance in determining the approach to be adopted. In Smith v Cameron (1986) 11 QLCR 64, the Land Court held at p.74…
“The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. No doubt each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances but it seems to me that either method is open to the valuer.”

In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty…

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 Dempster v Logan

Details

AGLC: Dempster v Logan [2008] QLC 96
Case: [2008] QLC 96
Decision Date: 22 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Land Court of Queensland dealt with the case of Dempster and Cuddy, applicants for the renewal of Mining Lease 95085, against Logan and Logan, the landowners. The primary dispute in this matter was the determination of the compensation payable to the landowners for the renewal of the mining lease, as no agreement regarding compensation had been reached between the parties. The court was tasked with determining the compensation under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, which governs the determination of compensation in the absence of an agreement between the parties. The court needed to assess the compensation based on the factors outlined in section 281(3) of the Act, including the area of the land affected, its value, the duration of the lease, and any additional factors deemed relevant. The court also considered whether to award compensation for access and the compulsory nature of the action.

The court reasoned that due to the small area of the lease and the lack of formal valuation evidence, the cost of a valuation would be disproportionate to the compensation amount. The court noted that the land's only other viable use was for low-intensity grazing. Consequently, the court determined that compensation should reflect the limited purposes authorised by the lease renewal. The court awarded $5 per hectare per annum for the term of the lease, totalling $70, and added $7 for the compulsory nature of the action, resulting in a total award of $100. The court directed that the compensation be paid within two months of the notification of the lease renewal by the Mining Registrar.

The court's final orders were that the total compensation under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 be set at One Hundred Dollars ($100), and that the miner pay this amount to the landowners within two months of the notification of the lease renewal by the Mining Registrar.

Orders