Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd v Mintram - [2009] QLC 187

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd v Mintram & Anor [2009] QLC 0187

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Leases No 30077 and 30078 – Determination of compensation payable by Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd to Lance William Mintram and Joan Edna Mintram
FILE NO’s:MRA1337-08 and MRA 1341-08
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:  27 November 2009 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:                   Atherton
MEMBER:Mr PA Smith
ORDERS:1.    As regards the renewal of ML30077, the miner pay compensation to the landholders in the sum of $1,250.00 within 28 days of the date hereof.
2.As regards the renewal of ML30078, the miner pay compensation to the landholders in the sum of $1,250.00 within 28 days of the date hereof.

CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION – COMPULSORY NATURE OF ACTION – ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279A, 281, 363

APPEARANCES: Mr and Mrs Mintram in person.

No appearance by Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd

Background

The Court has before it an application to determine compensation with respect to two mine leases, being ML30077 and ML30078. The matters were referred to the Land Court by the Mining Registrar, Georgetown District Office, as compensation had not been agreed between the landholders and the miner with respect to the renewal application.

These matters are proceeding under section 279A of the MRA. Both mining leases are for an area of 10 hectares. The mining leases share what appears to be an identical tenure history having been originally marked out on the 8 June 1992, commenced on the 1 March 1993 for a term of five years, renewed on the 1 March 1998 for a term of five years and renewed again on the 1 March 2003 for a term of five years. The ownership of the mining leases since 15 February 1995 has been Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd.

The matter has been called on for hearing in Atherton today and there has been no appearance by Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd. The Court has received no written submissions or other correspondence from Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd indicating that they would be appearing or not appearing or providing any advice to the Court whatsoever.

Mr and Mrs Mintram, the landholders, have both appeared today and Mr Mintram has given evidence on their behalf. During his evidence Mr Mintram indicated that he has had some negotiations with Endeavour Mining via its principal Mr Kinmonth. As a result of some discussions that the landowner and the miner have had there has been some remedial work done on the mining lease application areas, particularly the removal and burial of wastes, including lead products, which may be of danger to cattle. However, an outstanding issue regarding a cyanide leak from the tailing dam which occurred in 2004 has not been resolved on the basis as stated under oath by Mr Mintram that the mining company through Mr Kinmonth did not have the available funds at this time to make good the loss that had been…

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 Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd v Mintram

Details

AGLC: Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd v Mintram [2009] QLC 187
Case: [2009] QLC 187
Decision Date: 27 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Queensland, the case of Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd v Mintram involved a dispute over the compensation payable for the renewal of two mining leases, ML30077 and ML30078. The case was heard by Mr PA Smith, a member of the Land Court, and the primary issue was determining the compensation payable by Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd to Lance William Mintram and Joan Edna Mintram. The matter was referred to the court as the landholders and the miner had not agreed on the compensation for the lease renewals.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the amount of compensation for the loss of the breeding area and additional management costs due to the mining activities, and the appropriate compensation for the compulsory nature of the mining lease renewals. The court considered the evidence provided by Mr Mintram and the documents submitted, including a statement relating to compensation, a letter detailing costs for another mining lease, and the code of conduct for landholders and explorer relations. The court also had to consider the impact of a cyanide leak from the mine in 2004, which had not been resolved.

The court reasoned that the compensation should be determined based on the limited material before it, taking into account the loss of the breeding area, additional management costs, and the compulsory nature of the mining lease renewals. The court found that the loss of the breeding area over a five-year period equated to $1,500, and allowed an amount of $100 per year for additional management costs, which amounted to $500 for the five-year period. The court also considered the compulsory nature of the mining lease and decided that 25% of the aggregate determined compensation should be allowed to reflect this. Therefore, the total compensation for the renewal of both mining leases was determined to be $2,500, or $1,250 for each mining lease.

Final orders made by the court included requiring Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd to pay compensation to the landholders in the sum of $1,250 for each mining lease within 28 days of the date of the determination.

Orders