Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus - [2011] QLC 42

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus & Ors [2011] QLC 0042

PARTIES: Gregcarbil Pty Ltd
(Mining Lease Applicant)

v.

Cameron Backus and Michael Dolf Schmidt
(Objectors)

And

Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management (Statutory Party)

And

William James Crowther
(Landholder)

FILE NO: MRA474-10, EPA606-10, EPA225-11 and MRA229-11

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Application by landholder to be joined as a party to objections

DELIVERED ON: 6 July 2011 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT: BRISBANE

HEARD AT: BRISBANE

MEMBER: His Honour PA Smith

ORDER:
1.     Matters EPA606-10 and EPA225-11 be heard together.

2.     That the parties to both matters be common parties and that those parties be, (a), the administering authority, (b), the applicant, Gregcarbil Pty Ltd, (c), the objectors, Mr Schmidt and Mr Backus, the objector to certain environmental conditions, Gregcarbil Proprietary Limited and, finally, Mr Crowther, as a party to the proceedings.

3.     Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS: Environmental Authority Application - objections - late objections - discretion of statutory party - power of Court to order additional parties - objections under EP Act distinguished form objection sunder the MRA.

SOLICITORS:
Mr AC Barlow of counsel for the Mining Lease Applicant
Ms Hoult, legal officer, for the Statutory Party
Mr Backus self representing for himself and Mr Schmidt
Mr Crowther, landholder, self representing

{1]The Court currently has before it four matters: MRA474-10 which relates to objections to a mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act (1989) ("the MRA"); EPA606-10 which relates to properly made objections under the Environmental Protection Act (1994) (the "EP Act"); EPA225-11 which relates to objections received and accepted by the administering authority under s.217(3) of the EP Act; and MRA229-11 which relates to the determination of compensation with respect to the mining lease application, in so far as that relates to properties owned by Mr Cameron Backus relating to Lot 95 on SP 227975 and Lot 96 on SP 227975.

The matter is unusual for many reasons and it is appropriate to give a brief overview as to the facts as I understand them, noting that this matter is set down for hearing of the objections and for the beginning of the hearing of the compensation determination in the first week of August.
At the time of advertising of the environmental authority, lot 96 was owned by Mr and Mrs Schmidt. The Schmidts made an objection within the timeframe to the Environmental Authority, they also made an objection to the mining lease application and an objection was also made by Mr Cameron Backus, the owner of Lot 95, over which property part of the access to the mining lease application, which is ML70419, traverses.
There have been, since the closing of the objection period, ongoing negotiations between the administrating authority and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd, the applicant for the mining lease, as to the conditions that are to be included in the mining lease authority.
From my experience now of over 11 years in dealing with environmental conditions, it is quite a normal process…

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.

Continue reading Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus

Details

AGLC: Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus [2011] QLC 42
Case: [2011] QLC 42
Decision Date: 6 July 2011 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an environmental authority application, where Gregcarbil Pty Ltd sought approval for certain activities. The objectors, Mr Schmidt, Mr Backus, and Mr Crowther, raised concerns regarding the potential environmental impact of the proposed activities. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the late objections could be considered and whether the court had the power to order additional parties to the proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether the late objections could be entertained by the court, particularly given the statutory framework under which the Environmental Protection Act operates. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether it had the authority to order additional parties to the proceedings under the relevant statutory provisions. The distinction between objections under the Environmental Protection Act and those under the Mining Rehabilitation Act was also a point of consideration, as the procedures and timelines for objections under these two acts differ.

The court found that the late objections could be considered, exercising its discretion in light of the circumstances presented. The court also determined that it had the power to order additional parties to the proceedings, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders were included in the decision-making process. The distinction between objections under the Environmental Protection Act and the Mining Rehabilitation Act was acknowledged, but the court did not find it to be a barrier to considering the objections in this case.

The court made several orders to ensure that the proceedings were fair and inclusive. Firstly, it ordered that the two matters be heard together, to avoid any potential confusion or inconsistency in the decision-making process. Secondly, it specified the parties to the proceedings, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders were included. Finally, the court reserved the decision on costs, indicating that this matter would be addressed at a later stage.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Matters EPA606-10 and EPA225-11 be heard together.

2. That the parties to both matters be common parties and that those parties be, (a), the administering authority, (b), the applicant, Gregcarbil Pty Ltd, (c), the objectors, Mr Schmidt and Mr Backus, the objector to certain environmental conditions, Gregcarbil Proprietary Limited and, finally, Mr Crowther, as a party to the proceedings.

3. Costs reserved.

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:	Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus & Ors [2011] QLC 0042
PARTIES:	Gregcarbil Pty Ltd (Mining Lease Applicant)
v.
Cameron Backus and Michael Dolf Schmidt (Objectors) And Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Resource Management (Statutory Party) And William James Crowther (Landholder)
FILE NO:	MRA474-10, EPA606-10, EPA225-11 and MRA229-11
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Application by landholder to be joined as a party to objections
DELIVERED ON:	6 July 2011 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	BRISBANE
HEARD AT:	BRISBANE
MEMBER:	His Honour PA Smith
ORDER:	1. Matters EPA606-10 and EPA225-11 be heard together. 2. That the parties to both matters be common parties and that those parties be, (a), the administering authority, (b), the applicant, Gregcarbil Pty Ltd, (c), the objectors, Mr Schmidt and Mr Backus, the objector to certain environmental conditions, Gregcarbil Proprietary Limited and, finally, Mr Crowther, as a party to the proceedings. 3. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	Environmental Authority Application - objections - late objections - discretion of statutory party - power of Court to order additional parties - objections under EP Act distinguished form objection sunder the MRA.
SOLICITORS:	Mr AC Barlow of counsel for the Mining Lease Applicant Ms Hoult, legal officer, for the Statutory Party Mr Backus self representing for himself and Mr Schmidt Mr Crowther, landholder, self representing