Donovan v Struber (No. 3)

Case [2012] QLC 28


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Donovan v Struber & Ors (No. 3) [2012] QLC0028
PARTIES: Gary Awarua Donovan
(applicant)
v.

Stephen Roy Struber and Dianne Rose Wilson-Struber
(respondents)

Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (formerly known as the Department of Environment and Resource Management)
(Statutory Party)

FILE NO:

MRA137-10, EPA209-10, MRA352-09, EPA351-09, MRA354-09, EPA353-09, MRA356-09, EPA355-09, MRA342-11, EPA352-11, MRA341-11, EPA353-11.

DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Applications for Mining Leases Environmental Authorities and Objections thereto.
DELIVERED ON: 15 June 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT: Mareeba/Atherton/Brisbane.
MEMBER: Mr PA Smith
ORDERS: 1.   Taking into consideration all of the evidence before me and, in particular that evidence referred to above, and noting in particular the terms of settlement agreed to as between the miner and the landholders, I recommend to the Honourable Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that mining lease applications 20605, 20606, 20607, 20608, 20660 and 20670 each be granted over their entire application area, for the terms set out in paragraph 20 hereto, for the purposes sought by the applicant, subject to the inclusion of special conditions in the mining leases and draft environmental authorities consistent with the details as set out in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 hereof.
CATCHWORDS:

Mining – applications for mining leases and associated environmental authorities – objections – Mineral Resources Act 1989 – Environmental Protection Act 1994

Jurisdiction of the Land Court – withdrawal of objections made under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 following a negotiated settlement – whether the Court has jurisdiction to continue to make recommendations

Mining – recommendation under s.269 Mineral Resources Act 1989 – inclusion of special conditions agreed upon by the parties – whether condition requiring the Mining Registrar to provide the objectors with copies of the mining leases and environmental authorities appropriate

Mining – compensation for grant of mining leases – agreement reached between the parties – proceedings dismissed with no order as to costs

APPEARANCES:

Mr J Trevino of Counsel for the applicant;

Mr J Korn of Counsel for the respondent; and

Mr N Loos of Counsel for the Statutory Party.

SOLICITORS: Preston Law for the applicant;
Bottoms English for the respondent; and
Legal Services, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection for the Statutory Party.

Background

  1. Gary Awarua Donovan (“the miner”) has lodged nine mining lease applications with the Mining Registrar, Mareeba, seeking authority to undertake mining operations on land in the Palmerville area of Queensland. Each application is either wholly, or partly, over pastoral land owned by Stephen Roy Struber and Dianne Rose Wilson-Struber (“the landholders”). The landholders[1]lodged objections to the grant of each mining lease under the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the MRA”). The landholders have also lodged objections under the Environmental Protection Act1994 (“the EP Act”) relating to each of the nine mining leases. The landholders` objections with respect to each mining lease relate to the environmental authority application, and for some matters also relate to the draft environmental authority…

Continue reading Donovan v Struber (No. 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Donovan v Struber (No. 3) [2012] QLC 28
Case
[2012] QLC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Donovan v Struber (No. 3), the dispute centred around applications for mining leases and associated environmental authorities. The case was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The applicants sought mining leases for specific areas of land, and various objections were raised under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Following negotiations, the objectors withdrew their objections and the applicants reached a settlement with the objectors.

The legal issues before the court included whether it had jurisdiction to continue making recommendations after the objectors had withdrawn their objections and a settlement had been reached. Another issue was whether it was appropriate to include certain special conditions in the mining leases and draft environmental authorities, such as requiring the Mining Registrar to provide the objectors with copies of the mining leases and environmental authorities. A further issue was whether compensation should be paid to the landholders for the grant of the mining leases.

The court held that it did have jurisdiction to continue making recommendations, as the objections had been withdrawn after the court had already commenced its review. The court found that it was appropriate to include the special conditions agreed upon by the parties in the mining leases and draft environmental authorities. The court also noted that an agreement had been reached between the parties regarding compensation, and therefore there was no need for the court to make an order regarding compensation.

The court made a recommendation to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that the mining lease applications be granted over their entire application area, subject to the inclusion of special conditions in the mining leases and draft environmental authorities. The proceedings were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Taking into consideration all of the evidence before me and, in particular that evidence referred to above, and noting in particular the terms of settlement agreed to as between the miner and the landholders, I recommend to the Honourable Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that mining lease applications 20605, 20606, 20607, 20608, 20660 and 20670 each be granted over their entire application area, for the terms set out in paragraph 20 hereto, for the purposes sought by the applicant, subject to the inclusion of special conditions in the mining leases and draft environmental authorities consistent with the details as set out in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 hereof.

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.