Fitzgerald v Struber - [2017] QLC 28

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor [2017] QLC 28

PARTIES: Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Patrick Charles Fitzgerald
(applicants)

v

Stephen Roy Struber and Dianne Rose Wilson-Struber

(respondents)

FILE NO/s: MRA1146-16

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease.

DELIVERED ON: 13 June 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 15 February 2017.

HEARD AT: On the papers

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:
GJ Smith

ORDER/S:
In respect of ML 20244 per annum.compensation is determined in the sum of $484.00 1.

The miners pay compensation to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within three months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease.2.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – referral – renewal – determination of   compensation – compensation statement – use of Court judgments for determination purposes – Public Trustee of Queensland.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 279A, s 281

Public Trustee Act 1978, Part 7

Fitzgerald & Ors v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC 76

Kelly v Struber & Anor[2016] QLC 7

Pavey & Anor v Struber & Anor[2016] QLC 79

Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (No.2) (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES: Not applicable.

These proceedings concern a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of Mining Lease ML 20244.

Background

The applicants, Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Patrick Charles Fitzgerald (the miners), seek the grant of a mining lease located on land described as Lot 14 on SP 250040. The mining lease area comprises of 43.67 hectares within Palmerville Station which is owned by the respondents Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber (the landowners). There is no relevant access track utilised by the miners within ML 20244.

Palmerville Station is used for grazing purposes and is located within the Cook Shire local government area.

The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows:

Court Reference Tenure ID Area Term Lease Purpose

MRA1146-16 ML 20244 43.67 ha 10 years Alluvial Gold

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 or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

(i) deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;

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 Fitzgerald v Struber

Details

AGLC: Fitzgerald v Struber [2017] QLC 28
Case: [2017] QLC 28
Decision Date: 13 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fitzgerald v Struber is a case heard by the Queensland Land Court, involving a dispute over the compensation payable for the renewal of a mining lease. The respondent, Fitzgerald, sought a renewal of a mining lease over land held by the appellant, Struber. The crux of the dispute centred on the calculation of compensation to be paid for the renewal of the lease, with Fitzgerald arguing that the Public Trustee of Queensland should be the appropriate party to determine the compensation, relying on prior court judgments. Struber, on the other hand, opposed this, advocating for a different approach to the determination of compensation.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the Public Trustee of Queensland should be the sole party to determine compensation for the renewal of a mining lease and whether prior court judgments could be used as a basis for determining compensation in this context. The court had to interpret the statutory framework governing mining leases and the process of determining compensation for lease renewals.

The court found that the Public Trustee of Queensland did not have the exclusive authority to determine compensation for the renewal of a mining lease. Instead, the court held that the determination of compensation was a matter to be decided by the Queensland Land Court. The court further clarified that while prior judgments could be considered for guidance, they were not binding and the specific circumstances of each case needed to be taken into account. The court concluded that the compensation should be determined by considering all relevant factors, including the terms of the lease and the market value of the land.

The court ordered that the compensation for the renewal of the mining lease be determined by the Queensland Land Court, taking into account the relevant factors and not solely relying on prior judgments. The specific amount of compensation was to be further assessed by the court based on the evidence presented.

Orders