LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
| CITATION: | Dunn v Burtenshaw & Anor [2010] QLAC 0005 |
| PARTIES: | Gary Dunn (Appellant) |
| v. | |
| Rosemary Anne, Cameron Grenville Frederick & Gary Frederick Burtenshaw and Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management | |
| FILE NO: | LAC006-10 |
| DIVISION: | Land Appeal Court of Queensland |
| PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 October 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Cairns |
| HEARD AT: | Cairns 14 September 2010 |
| THE COURT: | The Honourable Justice Jones AO His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane, Member His Honour, Mr WA Isdale, Member |
| ORDER: | 1. The appeal is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Appeal – Right of Appeal – where objector sought to appeal against recommendation made by Land Court Member pursuant to s.269 Mineral Resources Act 1989 – whether hearing pursuant to s.268 of Mineral Resources Act is a “proceeding” as that term is used in s.64 Land Court Act 2000 – whether “recommendation” made pursuant to s.269 of Mineral Resources Act 1989 is a “decision” for the purposes of s.64 of Land Court Act 2000. Jurisdiction of Land Appeal Court. Mineral Resources Act 1989 s.265, s.268, s.271, s.363 Land Court Act 2000 s.64 Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 No. 7 of 1999 Land Court and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 Re Warden French ex parte Serpentine-Jarrahdale Ratepayers and Residents Association [1994] 11 WAR 315 Re His Worship Mr Calder SM; ex parte Gardener (1999) 20 WAR 525, [1992] 7 WAR 375 (at 385) Re Minister for Mines, Fuel and Energy; ex parte Trythall [1992] 7 WAR 375 (at 385) Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough & Anor [1974-75] 132 CLR 473 Re The Mining Warden at Maryborough v Titanium Mines Pty Ltd ex parte Sinclair (1975) Qd R 235 |
| APPEARANCES: | The Appellant in person Mrs R.A Burtenshaw for the Respondents Mr A Kwan (solicitor) for the Statutory Party |
Background
This is an appeal in respect of a recommendation made by the Land Court on 13 April 2010 whereby it was recommended that, subject to a special condition that no chemicals are to be used in the processing and separation of the mined material which is to be processed by washing and separating and drying and subject to fulfilment of any processes pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth), the Honourable Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and Energy and the Minister for Trade grant two mining leases, ML20541 and ML20542 on land described as Lot 43 on SP106048 and Lot 219 on AP2662. The leases are on a property otherwise described as Coolgarra Station at Mt Garnett within the Mareeba Mining District. The respondents are the owners of Coolgarra Station.
This appeal is against a recommendation of the Land Court consequent upon a hearing pursuant to s.268 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the MRA). Seemingly, the appeal is brought in reliance upon s.64 of the Land Court Act 2000. Mr Dunn, the appellant, in the present proceedings lodged objections to both mining lease applications. Accordingly a date was set for hearing of objections…
Continue reading Dunn v Burtenshaw
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dunn v Burtenshaw [2010] QLAC 5
- Case
- [2010] QLAC 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine the scope of the term "proceeding" as it appeared in section 64 of the Land Court Act and whether the hearing under section 268 of the Mineral Resources Act fell within this definition. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the "recommendation" made under section 269 of the Mineral Resources Act constituted a "decision" that could be appealed to the Land Appeal Court. These legal issues were pivotal in deciding whether the Land Appeal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to what extent the appellant's right to appeal was valid.
In resolving these issues, the court held that the hearing under section 268 of the Mineral Resources Act did not constitute a "proceeding" as defined in section 64 of the Land Court Act. Consequently, the recommendation made by the Land Court Member under section 269 of the Mineral Resources Act was not a "decision" that could be appealed to the Land Appeal Court. The court concluded that the Land Appeal Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal on the basis that the requirements for an appeal under the relevant legislation were not satisfied.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Land Appeal Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the recommendation made by the Land Court Member. This decision underscored the limitations of the appeal process under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Land Court Act 2000, reaffirming the specific conditions under which appeals could be made to the Land Appeal Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
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.