Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Limited v State of Queensland

Case

[2022] QSC 240

7 November 2022


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Limited v State of Queensland [2022] QSC 240 [2022] QSC 240 7 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Limited sued the State of Queensland in the Supreme Court of Queensland over issues of coal ownership and mining royalties. Glencore operates the Rolleston Coal Mine under mining leases granted by the Minister on behalf of the State of Queensland. Glencore argued it had paid over $54 million in royalties under the mistaken belief that the State of Queensland owned the coal. Glencore claimed it should be entitled to a restitutionary remedy for this payment. The State of Queensland argued that it had always been the owner of the coal and that Glencore's restitutionary claim was barred by statute.

The court needed to determine whether the State of Queensland had always been the owner of the coal in question, and whether Glencore's restitutionary claim was precluded by statute. The court held that the State of Queensland did not become the owner of the coal until the fresh deeds of grant were issued in 1935 and 1985, not at the time the original deeds were surrendered in 1934 and 1984. The court also held that Glencore's restitutionary claim was not precluded by the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) and the Taxation Administration Act (Qld). The court found that Glencore had a valid claim for restitution as it had paid the royalties under a mistake of fact.

The court ordered that the State of Queensland was not the owner of the coal in question until the fresh deeds of grant were issued, and that Glencore's claim for restitution was not precluded by statute. The court also ordered that the State of Queensland pay Glencore's costs of the hearing and determination of the separate questions, and the costs of the third party and first defendant by counterclaim.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Property Law

  • Restitution

Legal Concepts

  • Adverse Possession

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Unjust Enrichment

  • Restitution

  • Unconscionable Conduct

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

13

Statutory Material Cited

10