Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd

In the case of Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd, the applicant, Henry, sought additional compensation from the respondent, ERO, due to changes in circumstances related to the mining lease. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), with the Tribunal being required to determine whether there had been a material change in circumstances justifying an increase in compensation. The Tribunal also needed to ascertain the appropriate amount of compensation if a change in circumstances was found. The applicant contended that the respondent's mining activities had blocked access to a road used for private purposes, which was a significant change from the circumstances existing when the original compensation was agreed upon. The respondent argued that there had been no material change in circumstances.

The Tribunal began by examining the nature of the road in question, noting that it was not a public road but a private access road. It was established that the road had been in use for over a century and was documented in historical evidence such as surveyor reports and cadastral maps. The Tribunal accepted that the road's blockage due to the respondent's mining activities constituted a material change in circumstances, triggering a review of the compensation under section 283B of the Mining Act 1978 (MRA). The Tribunal also considered the evidence regarding the quantification of damages, including loss of access, additional expenses, and lost income opportunities. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to additional compensation and assessed the amount based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant an additional sum of compensation, both as a lump sum for the period up until 13 July 2014 and as a monthly amount thereafter until the road was reopened. The lump sum was calculated at Thirty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven Dollars and Ten Cents ($37,907.10), and the monthly compensation was set at Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty-four Dollars and Sixty-two Cents ($3,954.62). These sums were to be paid by the respondent to the applicant in addition to the compensation determined in the 2012 agreement. The Tribunal also noted that the original compensation agreement remained in force for all other aspects not covered by this decision.