Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen - [2015] QLC 30

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2015] QLC 30

PARTIES:
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Lorna Gundersen

(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA 074-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 3 August 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 29 May 2015

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:
1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand and Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20094 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered – limited material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23
Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15
Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73
Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117
Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42

APPEARANCES:
Not applicable

This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.

Background

On 26 June 2013, Mr Michael Lindsay Scott applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20094 over land located at Stannary Hills in the Mareeba District. The land is within the Mareeba Shire Council local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 16 years. The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of tin.
Subsequent to Mr Scott’s renewal application Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd acquired Mining Lease 20094 and is recorded as the holder of the lease as and from 31 October 2013.
Mining Lease 20094 is located on land owned by Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Lorna Gundersen and more particularly described as Lot 598 on OL 64 Occupation Licence 598.
Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that ML 20094 comprises an area of 7.95 ha which I will round to 8 ha for determination purposes. Access to the mining lease area is via a track approximately 300 m (rounded to 1 km). Material submitted on behalf of the miner suggests that the width of the access track is 5 m this will result in an access area of .5 ha [rounded to 1 Ha for assessment purposes].

Relevant Legislation

Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed…

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 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen

Details

AGLC: Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen [2015] QLC 30
Case: [2015] QLC 30
Decision Date: 3 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The dispute centred around the determination of compensation to be paid by the mining company, Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd, to the Gundersen family in relation to the renewal of a mining lease. The Gundersen family sought compensation for the renewal of Mining Lease 20094, while Eacham Abrasive Blasting contested the amount claimed.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was to determine the appropriate compensation to be paid by the mining company to the Gundersen family, considering the limited material provided by both parties. The tribunal had to balance the interests of both parties and make a decision based on the evidence presented, despite the lack of detailed submissions or evidence from either side.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal considered the limited material provided by both parties and the absence of detailed submissions from either side. The tribunal emphasised the importance of both parties providing comprehensive information and submissions to facilitate a fair determination of the compensation. Ultimately, the tribunal determined that the compensation should be set at One Thousand and Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00). The tribunal further ordered that the compensation be paid by Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd to the Gundersen family within three months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20094 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand and Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20094 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

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:	Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2015] QLC 30
PARTIES:	Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd (applicant)
v
Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Lorna Gundersen (respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA 074-15
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 29 May 2015
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:	1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand and Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00). 2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20094 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered – limited material provided by either party. Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281. Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38
Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23 Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15 Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73 Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117 Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable