Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v Keys - [2014] QLAC 2

LAND APPEAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors [2014] QLAC 2

PARTIES:

GLENCORE COAL QUEENSLAND PTY LTD
ACN 098 156 702
(formerly Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd)

(first appellant)

SUMISHO COAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ACN 061 524 249

(second appellant)

ICRA WANDOAN PTY LTD
ACN 106 260 619

(third appellant)

v

COWAN WILLIAM KEYS AND HELEN MCINTYRE KEYS

(first respondents)

SKY GROVE PTY LTD

(second respondent)

JOHN GERARD ERBACHER

(third respondent)

THOMAS WILLIAM EDMONDS AND JANICE ANN EDMONDS

(fourth respondents)

FILE NO:

LAC005-13

Land Court Nos. MRA092-11 and EPA093-11, MRA098-11 and EPA099-11, MRA105-11 and EPA106-11

DIVISION:

Land Appeal Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland

ORIGINATING COURT:

Land Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2013

THE COURT:

Peter Lyons J
WL Cochrane, Member of the Land Court

WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the Land Court determined compensation for the respondents as a condition precedent to the grant of mining leases over their properties – where the appellants are mining companies and submit that the Land Court erred in adopting the approach of applying sales evidence in a “generous and not niggardly spirit” used in Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No 2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the respondents – where the appellants argue that in Wills the court was faced with a depressed property market and an uncertain date for payment of compensation and that this was not a comparable case – whether the Land Court erred by taking the approach identified in Wills

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL OR REVIEW – nature of appeal to Land Appeal Court for a determination of compensation – where the appellants submit that the Land Appeal Court must give the judgment which ought to have been given at first instance – whether, in the circumstances, the Land Appeal Court is in as good a position as the Land Court to reach conclusions about the value of land

REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHODS OF VALUATION – COMPARABLE SALES – GENERALLY – where the expert valuer for the respondents treated the sale of two properties as comparable sales in assessing the value of the respondents’ properties – where the expert valuer for the appellants rejected that the properties were comparable – where the first property was bought by a resource company and was not publicly marketed for sale – where the appellants submitted that the second property was superior to the respondents’ properties because it had better water access, was very well improved, and included a sum for plant and equipment – whether the Land Court erred in its consideration of these properties in assessing the…

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 Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v Keys 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: [2014] QLAC 2
Decision Date: 7 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd and Glencore Coal Queensland Holdings Pty Ltd appealed against the Land Court’s determination of compensation payable to the respondents as a condition precedent to the grant of mining leases over their properties. The Land Court assessed the compensation based on comparable sales and the impact of the mining leases on the value of the properties. The appellants argued that the Land Court erred in its approach to assessing compensation, particularly in its consideration of comparable sales and the impact of the mining leases on the value of the properties.

The central legal issues were whether the Land Court correctly applied the approach used in Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No 2] in assessing the amount of compensation, and whether the court correctly considered the comparable sales and the impact of the mining leases on the value of the properties. The appellants contended that the Land Court should have adopted a different approach to assessing compensation, particularly in light of the differing circumstances from the Wills case. They also argued that the Land Court incorrectly considered certain properties as comparable sales and failed to adequately account for the impact of the mining leases on the value of the properties.

The Land Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Land Court did not err in its assessment of compensation. The court held that the Land Court was in as good a position as the Land Court to reach conclusions about the value of the land, and that the approach used in Wills was applicable to the facts of this case. The court also found that the Land Court did not err in considering the comparable sales and the impact of the mining leases on the value of the properties, as it had considered the relevant factors and applied the appropriate principles in reaching its decision.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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:	Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors [2014] QLAC 2
PARTIES:	GLENCORE COAL QUEENSLAND PTY LTD ACN 098 156 702 (formerly Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd) (first appellant) SUMISHO COAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 061 524 249 (second appellant) ICRA WANDOAN PTY LTD ACN 106 260 619 (third appellant) v COWAN WILLIAM KEYS AND HELEN MCINTYRE KEYS (first respondents) SKY GROVE PTY LTD (second respondent) JOHN GERARD ERBACHER (third respondent) THOMAS WILLIAM EDMONDS AND JANICE ANN EDMONDS (fourth respondents)
FILE NO:	LAC005-13 Land Court Nos. MRA092-11 and EPA093-11, MRA098-11 and EPA099-11, MRA105-11 and EPA106-11
DIVISION:	Land Appeal Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from the Land Court of Queensland
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 September 2013
THE COURT:	Peter Lyons J WL Cochrane, Member of the Land Court WA Isdale, Member of the Land Court
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the Land Court determined compensation for the respondents as a condition precedent to the grant of mining leases over their properties – where the appellants are mining companies and submit that the Land Court erred in adopting the approach of applying sales evidence in a “generous and not niggardly spirit” used in Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No 2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the respondents – where the appellants argue that in Wills the court was faced with a depressed property market and an uncertain date for payment of compensation and that this was not a comparable case – whether the Land Court erred by taking the approach identified in Wills ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL OR REVIEW – nature of appeal to Land Appeal Court for a determination of compensation – where the appellants submit that the Land Appeal Court must give the judgment which ought to have been given at first instance – whether, in the circumstances, the Land Appeal Court is in as good a position as the Land Court to reach conclusions about the value of land REAL PROPERTY – VALUATION OF LAND – METHODS OF VALUATION – COMPARABLE SALES – GENERALLY – where the expert valuer for the respondents treated the sale of two properties as comparable sales in assessing the value of the respondents’ properties – where the expert valuer for the appellants rejected that the properties were comparable – where the first property was bought by a resource company and was not publicly marketed for sale – where the appellants submitted that the second property was superior to the respondents’ properties because it had better water access, was very well improved, and included a sum for plant and equipment – whether the Land Court erred in its consideration of these properties in assessing the…