Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38

PARTIES:

Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Loran Gundersen
(respondents)

FILE NO:

MRA031-13

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 19 September 2014

HEARD AT:

Heard on the Papers

MEMBER:

PA Smith

ORDER:

1.    Compensation is determined in the total sum of Eighty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($82.50).

2.    Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd pay the total compensation of $82.50 to Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Loran Gundersen within two months of the renewal of ML 20079.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – 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
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 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd (the miner) currently holds Mining Lease (ML) 20079. A previous holder applied for a renewal of ML 20079 on 7 June 2012 for a period of five years.

2. The ML is located on land which is owned by Grant Henrik Gundersen and Laurelle Ursula Lorna Gundersen (the landholders). There is also access to the ML across the landholders’ land.

3. From mapping material provided by the Mining Registrar, Mareeba, the access through the landholders’ property is about 1 km long. ML 20079 has an area of 1 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 this matter, no agreements have been lodged with the Mining Registrar and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination.

2. The issues which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s 281(3) and (4) of the MRA.

3. Although s 281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. In Smith v Cameron,[1] the Land Court held:

   “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.”

   [1](1986) 11 QLCR 64 at p 74 and 75.

4. In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd