Friese v Lonergan & Anor
Case
•
[2019] QLC 27
•4 June 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Friese v Lonergan & Anor [2019] QLC 27
[2019] QLC 27
4 June 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Friese v Lonergan & Anor, the court was tasked with determining compensation for the renewal of a mining lease over marginal land, which was the subject of a small-scale gold mine. The case arose under the Mining Act 1978 (Qld) and the relevant mining lease was ML 70152. The dispute involved the applicants, Friese, who sought renewal of the lease, and the respondents, Lonergan, the landholders over which the lease was to be renewed. The court was required to address several compensation-related issues, including whether previous compensation determinations, which were based on little to no evidence, could be relied upon, and whether there was entitlement to compensation for various factors including deprivation of possession, diminution in productivity, and time spent negotiating and managing the property.
The court examined the legislative framework governing mining leases and compensation, and considered the principles of fairness and equity in determining compensation. It found that previous compensation determinations, which had been made on limited evidence, could not be relied upon as they did not reflect the true value of the land or the impact of mining activities. The court also concluded that the applicants were not entitled to compensation for deprivation of possession of the surface of the land, as the lease did not confer any rights to exclusive possession. Regarding the entitlement to compensation for diminution in productivity, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the mining activities and a reduction in productivity. Consequently, no compensation was awarded for this factor. The court did, however, recognise the time and effort expended by the applicants in negotiating the lease and managing the property, and awarded compensation for this aspect.
In summary, the court determined that the compensation for the renewal of ML 70152 should be set at Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($3,726.38). The applicants were ordered to pay this amount within thirty days from the notification of the renewal by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Additionally, the applicants were required to contribute to the maintenance of the access track to the mining lease by paying 10% of any invoice for track grading that was reasonably necessary during the term of the renewal, with such invoices not exceeding one per annum.
The court examined the legislative framework governing mining leases and compensation, and considered the principles of fairness and equity in determining compensation. It found that previous compensation determinations, which had been made on limited evidence, could not be relied upon as they did not reflect the true value of the land or the impact of mining activities. The court also concluded that the applicants were not entitled to compensation for deprivation of possession of the surface of the land, as the lease did not confer any rights to exclusive possession. Regarding the entitlement to compensation for diminution in productivity, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the mining activities and a reduction in productivity. Consequently, no compensation was awarded for this factor. The court did, however, recognise the time and effort expended by the applicants in negotiating the lease and managing the property, and awarded compensation for this aspect.
In summary, the court determined that the compensation for the renewal of ML 70152 should be set at Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($3,726.38). The applicants were ordered to pay this amount within thirty days from the notification of the renewal by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. Additionally, the applicants were required to contribute to the maintenance of the access track to the mining lease by paying 10% of any invoice for track grading that was reasonably necessary during the term of the renewal, with such invoices not exceeding one per annum.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
-
Mining Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adverse Possession
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Renewal of Lease
-
Compensation for Deprivation of Possession
-
Compensation for Diminution of Value
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Friese v Lonergan & Anor [2019] QLC 27
Most Recent Citation
Lonergan & Anor v Friese [2020] QLAC 3
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2020] QLC 8
Lonergan & Anor v Friese (No 2)
[2020] QLAC 4
Lonergan & Anor v Friese
[2020] QLAC 3
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
1
Palmer v Appleton
[2014] QLC 5
Gosper & Ors v Struber & Anor
[2019] QLC 11
Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor
[2009] QLC 76