Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd v Comiskey (No 2) - [2025] QLC 9

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd v Comiskey & Anor (No 2) [2025] QLC 9

PARTIES: Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Peter Locksley Comiskey
(respondent)

Denise Mary Comiskey
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA418-24

PROCEEDING: Hearing of two general applications

DELIVERED ON: 14 May 2025

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 10 March 2025

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: N.D. Loos

ORDERS:
The Respondents’ General Application filed on 17 December 2024 is dismissed. 1.

By 4.00pm on 21 May 2025, the parties are entitled to file and serve submissions as to the form of Order that should follow the conclusions expressed in these reasons.2.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – COMPENSATION – MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE MINING LEASE – where the applicant held a mining lease over land owned by the respondents – where there was an existing conduct and compensation agreement – where the applicant failed to pay compensation in time according to that agreement – where the parties agreed to renegotiate the compensation amount due to that failure – where that renegotiation was unsuccessful and the amount was paid plus interest at a later time – where the respondents sought a declaration in the Supreme Court – where the Supreme Court referred the parties to the Land Court noting section 28bB of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 – whether the agreement to renegotiate or the Supreme Court judgment or other particulars submitted by the Respondents amounted to a material change in circumstances for the mining lease for the purposes of s 283B(1)(b) – application dismissed.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14D

Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2000

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 283A, s 283B

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, s 537C

AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (2024) 278 CLR 300, cited

Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 137, considered

Deimel v Phelps [2022] QLC 6, cited

ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (2015) 36 QLCR 318; [2015] QLAC 4, considered

Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors (2014) 35 QLCR 194; [2014] QLAC 2, considered

Hicks & Anor v Graham & Anor [2004] QLRT 47, cited

Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Ltd & Ors (2017) 38 QLCR 91; [2017] QLC 41, applied

R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507, cited

Shaw v Idemitsu Australia Resources Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 40, cited

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362, cited

APPEARANCES:
A Thompson KC and A Nicholas (instructed by McCullough Robertson) for the applicant

J Horton KC and W Isdale (instructed by Suthers Taylor) for the respondents

Reasons for decision

Fairhill plans to mine coal on the Comiskeys’ land.[1]
[1]‘Old Mount Stuart’, Lot 2 on Crown Plan TT241. Operated…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd v Comiskey (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QLC 9
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd, the applicant, held a mining lease over land owned by the respondents, Comiskey. The dispute centred on the compensation owed under an existing conduct and compensation agreement. Fairhill had failed to pay the compensation on time, leading to an agreement to renegotiate the compensation amount due to this failure. When the renegotiation proved unsuccessful, Fairhill eventually paid the amount plus interest. The respondents sought a declaration in the Supreme Court, which referred the parties to the Land Court under section 28bB of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the agreement to renegotiate the compensation amount, the Supreme Court judgment, or other particulars submitted by the respondents amounted to a "material change in circumstances" for the mining lease under section 283B(1)(b) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court had to interpret the meaning of "material change in circumstances" and determine whether any of the events or agreements in question triggered the application of section 283B(1)(b).

The court analysed the legislative provisions and relevant case law to understand the scope of "material change in circumstances." It found that the agreement to renegotiate the compensation amount did not constitute a material change in circumstances, as it was a consequence of Fairhill's failure to meet its obligations under the original agreement. Furthermore, the court held that the Supreme Court judgment and the other particulars submitted by the respondents did not amount to a material change in circumstances either. The court reasoned that these events did not alter the fundamental nature or circumstances of the mining lease. Consequently, the court dismissed the respondents' application.

The Land Court ordered that the respondents' general application filed on 17 December 2024 be dismissed. The court also mandated that by 4.00pm on 21 May 2025, the parties submit and serve their respective submissions regarding the form of order that should follow from the court's conclusions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondents’ General Application filed on 17 December 2024 is dismissed. 1.

By 4.00pm on 21 May 2025, the parties are entitled to file and serve submissions as to the form of Order that should follow the conclusions expressed in these reasons.2.

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:	Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd v Comiskey & Anor (No 2) [2025] QLC 9
PARTIES:	Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd (applicant)
v
Peter Locksley Comiskey (respondent)
Denise Mary Comiskey (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA418-24
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of two general applications
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	10 March 2025
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	N.D. Loos
ORDERS:	The Respondents’ General Application filed on 17 December 2024 is dismissed. 1. By 4.00pm on 21 May 2025, the parties are entitled to file and serve submissions as to the form of Order that should follow the conclusions expressed in these reasons.2.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – JURISDICTION AND POWERS – COMPENSATION – MATERIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE MINING LEASE – where the applicant held a mining lease over land owned by the respondents – where there was an existing conduct and compensation agreement – where the applicant failed to pay compensation in time according to that agreement – where the parties agreed to renegotiate the compensation amount due to that failure – where that renegotiation was unsuccessful and the amount was paid plus interest at a later time – where the respondents sought a declaration in the Supreme Court – where the Supreme Court referred the parties to the Land Court noting section 28bB of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 – whether the agreement to renegotiate or the Supreme Court judgment or other particulars submitted by the Respondents amounted to a material change in circumstances for the mining lease for the purposes of s 283B(1)(b) – application dismissed. Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14D Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2000 Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 283A, s 283B Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, s 537C AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (2024) 278 CLR 300, cited Comiskey v Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 137, considered Deimel v Phelps [2022] QLC 6, cited ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (2015) 36 QLCR 318; [2015] QLAC 4, considered Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors (2014) 35 QLCR 194; [2014] QLAC 2, considered Hicks & Anor v Graham & Anor [2004] QLRT 47, cited Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Ltd & Ors (2017) 38 QLCR 91; [2017] QLC 41, applied R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507, cited Shaw v Idemitsu Australia Resources Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 40, cited SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362, cited
APPEARANCES:	A Thompson KC and A Nicholas (instructed by McCullough Robertson) for the applicant J Horton KC and W Isdale (instructed by Suthers Taylor) for the respondents