LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: GOTAP Pty Ltd v Skelton [2021] QLC 20 PARTIES: GOTAP Pty Ltd
(applicant)v
Christopher James Skelton
(respondent)FILE NO: MRA098-20 PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease DELIVERED ON: 17 June 2021 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 20 April 2021 HEARD AT: Heard on the papers MEMBER: JR McNamara ORDERS: I determine that GOTAP Pty Ltd must pay Christopher James Skelton compensation in respect of ML 95439 as follows:
one sixth of the cost of one weed inspection being the sum of Ten Dollars ($10) paid per annum; and 1.
if the access road is not maintained and Mr Skelton incurs that expense, one sixth of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance within 28 days of presentation of an invoice. 2.
CATCHWORDS: ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where matter referred to Land Court for determination – where subject land used for access only – where parties filed compensation statements unsupported by expert evidence – where Court relies on previous determination to reach a compensation figure
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279, s 279A, s 281
Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11, applied
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No 2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297, appliedAPPEARANCES: Not applicable
This matter concerns a referral to the Land Court of a mining compensation matter from the Mineral Hub, Department of Resources (“Resources”) pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“MRA”). The referral was filed in the Land Court on 30 June 2020.
Background
On 29 September 2014, the applicant, GOTAP Pty Ltd (“GOTAP”), applied to renew ML 95439 for a period of 10 years. The mining lease is for the purpose of open cut opal mining.
The mining lease is in the Winton Mining District on a property known as Vergemont (Lot 278 on OL363). Access to the mining lease, however, is via the adjacent property owned by the respondent, Christopher James Skelton, Lot 1 on RK4 (Eildon Park) and Lot 2 on RK5 (Mayneside). The length of access is agreed to be a total of 11.8 km and the width of 5 m, the total area comprising 5.9 ha. There has been engagement between Mr Jackson, Sole Director of GOTAP, and Mr Skelton regarding compensation but no agreement.
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 Resources which is why the matter was referred to the Land Court for determination.
Section 281 of the MRA sets out those matters which must be considered by this Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:
“(i) deprivation of…
Continue reading Gotap Pty Ltd v Skelton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gotap Pty Ltd v Skelton [2021] QLC 20
- Case
- [2021] QLC 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the lack of expert evidence and looked to a previous determination for guidance. It was noted that the land in question was not used for any other purpose than providing access, and thus the compensation should reflect this limited use. The court concluded that the compensation should be modest, reflecting the minimal use of the land and the absence of any substantial interference with Skelton's rights.
The court determined that Gotap must pay Skelton one-sixth of the annual cost of a weed inspection, amounting to $10 per year. Additionally, if Skelton incurs any expenses for maintaining the access road and presents an invoice within 28 days, Gotap must pay one-sixth of those expenses. This ruling balanced the need for fair compensation with the limited use of the land and the lack of evidence to support a higher compensation figure.
Orders
Orders of the court
I determine that GOTAP Pty Ltd must pay Christopher James Skelton compensation in respect of ML 95439 as follows:
one sixth of the cost of one weed inspection being the sum of Ten Dollars ($10) paid per annum; and 1.
if the access road is not maintained and Mr Skelton incurs that expense, one sixth of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance within 28 days of presentation of an invoice. 2.
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.