Fitzgerald v Struber

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Fitzgerald v Struber [2013] QLC 44

PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 5219 – Determination of compensation payable by Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Patrick Charles Fitzgerald to Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber

FILE NO:MRA18-12
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  11 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:1. Compensation determined at $505 per annum.

2. The miner pay compensation of $505 to the landholders within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar and $505 per annum payable on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease.

CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s.281

APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers

Background

On 13 August 2008 Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Patrick Charles Fitzgerald (the miners) lodged an application for renewal of Mining Lease 5219 for a term of 15 years with the Mining Registrar, Mareeba District.
This determination of compensation relates to the mining lease. The lease relates to property (Palmerville Station) Lot 14 on SP 208316 (formerly Lot 2 on CP 910619) owned by Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber (the landholders). The Mining Lease area is 46 hectares (rounded).
The reason that this matter has been delayed (along with other Mining Leases relating to Palmerville Station) is that notices to the landowners inviting them to make submissions on this compensation hearing were returned to the Court marked “unable to be delivered”. After alternative attempts to arrange service were unsuccessful, the Court Registrar was ultimately able to arrange with the landowners’ solicitor, Mrs Anne English (Bottoms English Solicitors Cairns), for delivery of the material to be made to the landowners. This took place on or about Monday, 3 June 2013.
No response has been received from the landowners regarding submissions on compensation by the required date 1 July 2013. The miners also have made no submissions on compensation.
The absence of detailed compensation evidence from both sides clearly makes the task of the Court in determining compensation difficult. In the circumstances, I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in Re Wallace & Ors & Evans.[1]
[1] [2006] QLRT 93.

Determination

Taking into account all heads of compensation in s.281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act), I assess compensation for the mining lease in the minimal sum of $10 per hectare per annum for the term of the lease. Pursuant to s.281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $45 per annum (rounded).
Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miners pay the total compensation of $505 per annum to the landholders, the first payment within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar and annual payments on the anniversary of the date of renewal of the lease.

BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Queensland, the case of Fitzgerald v Struber [2013] QLC 44 involved the determination of compensation for a mining lease. The applicants, Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Patrick Charles Fitzgerald, sought renewal of Mining Lease 5219, which pertains to land owned by Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson-Struber. The land in question is located at Palmerville Station, Lot 14 on SP 208316. The dispute centred on the calculation of compensation that the miners owed to the landholders for the renewal of the lease. The landholders did not submit any evidence or arguments regarding the compensation, nor did the miners.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate compensation payable under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. Given the absence of submissions from either party, the court had to rely on the established principles and methodology for compensation determination as outlined in relevant case law. The court referenced the analysis in Re Wallace & Ors & Evans, where similar compensation principles were applied. The court also considered the minimal compensation rate of $10 per hectare per annum for the lease term and an additional sum as stipulated by the Act.

The court concluded that the compensation should be set at $505 per annum, comprising the minimal compensation of $460 (calculated at $10 per hectare for 46 hectares) and an additional sum of $45 per annum. This total was deemed appropriate considering the absence of any submissions or evidence from the parties. The court ordered that the first payment be made within two months from the notification of the lease renewal by the Mining Registrar and subsequent annual payments on the anniversary of the lease renewal. This decision provided a clear and definitive outcome for both parties involved in the lease agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established