Exco Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Daniels

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Exco Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd v Daniels & Ors [2018] QLC 1*

PARTIES:

Exco Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Andrew William Jesse Daniels
Samuel Dona James Daniels
Gabrielle Kennedy
Jeffrey Robert James Daniels
and
Luke William Jesse Daniels
(respondents)

FILE NO:

MRA697-17

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

General application

DELIVERED ON:

18 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 22 December 2017

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

MEMBER:

PG Stilgoe

ORDERS:

1.   The originating application filed 8 November 2017 is dismissed.

2.   The parties may file and serve any submissions as to the costs of the application by 29 January 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS –QUEENSLAND – OTHER COURTS AND TRIBUNALS – where compensation agreement signed before issue of mining lease – where compensation agreement related to exploration only – where compensation limited to $1 – where compensation agreement provided for further negotiation if mining commenced – where parties could not agree further compensation – where miner filed application to amend compensation agreement – whether Court has jurisdiction to amend compensation agreement

ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLAC 4
Hicks & Anor v Graham & Anor [2004] QLRT 47
Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Limited & Ors [2017] QLC 41
Project Blue Sky In v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A
Mineral Resources Act s 2(a), s 2(c), s 2(f), s 279(1)

APPEARANCES:

Ashurst Australia for the applicant
Thynne + Macartney for the respondents

1. The respondents conduct grazing activities on land known as Toole Creek, in the Cloncurry region. On 8 February 2017, they entered into a compensation agreement with Exco Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd. The agreement allowed Exco to conduct exploration activities, including geophysics or geological mapping, and environmental surveys as required.

2. On 16 October 2017, Exco was granted mining lease ML100077 for a term of ten years. It intends to mine on the respondents’ land.

3. The parties have not been able to agree on the compensation payable for mining activities, so Exco filed an application for the Land Court to review the original compensation agreement through its power under s 283B of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld).

4. Under s 283B, a mining lease holder can apply to the Land Court for a review of original compensation if:

   (1)   Compensation has been agreed under s 279 or 280 for a mining lease; and

   (2)   Since that agreement, there has been a material change in circumstances for the mining lease.

5. The respondents submit that the Court has no jurisdiction to review the compensation. They submit that the parties did not agree compensation for a mining lease within the meaning of the Act. They submit that, if there was such an agreement, there has been no material change of circumstances.

   
   
   

Did the parties agree compensation for a mining lease?

1. Because the respondents’ land is directly affected by the…