Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35
PARTIES: Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd
(applicant)
v
Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE
(respondents)
FILE NO: MRA309-12
MRA108-13
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining leases
DELIVERED ON: 24 October 2014
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 22 October 2014
HEARD AT: Heard on the Papers
ACTING PRESIDENT: PA Smith
ORDER:

1.    As regards ML 20032 (MRA309-12):

      (a)  Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330)

      (b)  Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd pay the total compensation of $330 to Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE within two months of the renewal of ML 20032.

2.    As regards ML 20132 (MRA108-13):

      (a)  Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330)

      (b)  Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd pay the total compensation of $330 to Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE within two months of the renewal of ML 20132.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASES – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – lack of material from parties

Mineral Resources Act 1989

Fitzgerald v Struber [2009] QLC 76
Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26
McGrath v Callaghan & Ors [2011] QLC 29
Mintram & Anor v Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd (2010) 31 QLCR 153
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported
Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139
Smith v Cameron (1986) 11 QLCR 64
Unimin Australia Limited v Maurice and Tricia Freeman (2007) QLC 76

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

Background

  1. The applicant Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd (the miner) currently holds Mining Lease (ML) 20032 and ML 20132. The miner applied for a renewal of ML 20032 on 22 March 2012 for a period of 10 years, and for a renewal of ML 20132 on 13 December 2012, also for a period of 10 years.

  2. Both MLs are located on Eureka Creek Station which is owned by Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE (the landholders). There is also access to each ML from the boundary of Eureka Creek Station.

  3. From mapping material provided by the Mining Registrar, Mareeba, each access through the landholder’s property is about 1 km long. ML 20032 has an area of 2.462 ha and ML 20132 has an area of 2.2667 ha.

Principles of compensation

  1. Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) 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 Mining Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In these matters, no agreements have been lodged with the Mining Registrar and the matters have been referred to the Court for determination.

  2. The issues which must be considered by the Court are…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QLC 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd, the respondent, and Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White, the applicants. The dispute centred on the compensation owed to the applicants for mining leases, specifically ML 20032 and ML 20132, held by Densyl Sandstone. The applicants sought to have the compensation determined by the court, as they had not been provided with sufficient material by the respondent. The case was heard in the Mining and Petroleum Titles Division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had provided enough material to determine the compensation and, if not, what factors the court should consider in making its determination. The court was required to weigh the submissions and evidence presented by both parties and determine the compensation for the mining leases in question.

The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient material to enable a determination of compensation. It held that in such cases, the court must consider the factors outlined in relevant legislation, including the rental value of the land, the period for which the mining lease was granted, and any other relevant matters. The court also noted that it must take into account the submissions and evidence provided by both parties. After considering these factors, the court determined that the compensation for both mining leases should be set at $330.

In summary, the court determined that the compensation for both ML 20032 and ML 20132 should be set at $330 and ordered Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd to pay this amount to the applicants within two months of the renewal of each lease. The court’s decision provided clarity on the factors to be considered in determining compensation for mining leases when insufficient material is provided by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. As regards ML 20032 (MRA309-12):

(a) Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330)

(b) Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd pay the total compensation of $330 to Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE within two months of the renewal of ML 20032.

2. As regards ML 20132 (MRA108-13):

(a) Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330)

(b) Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd pay the total compensation of $330 to Robert Graham White and Robyn Doris White as TTE within two months of the renewal of ML 20132.

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.