Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd  [2014] QLC 21

PARTIES:

Thomas Peter Henry
(applicant)

v

ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA36-14

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Application to add parties

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2014 [Ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

29 April 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

MEMBER:

PA Smith

ORDERS:

[After further submissions, the following orders were made]

1.    Leave is granted for the amendment of the originating application in so far as those amendments do not relate to the joinder of parties.

2.    Etheridge Shire Council is joined as the Second Respondent.

3.    Lurleen Alison Young is joined as the Third Respondent.

4.    The applicant file and serve its amended application giving effect to Orders 1 to 3 above by 4.00pm on 9 May 2014.

5.    The matter be listed for hearing in Georgetown for three days from 15 July 2014, with the first day being set aside for a site inspection.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JOINDER OF PARTIES – MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED – ABILITY OF COURT TO adjudicate effectively and completely matters in DISPUTE

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 363
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 69(1)

APPEARANCES:

EJ Morzone of Counsel for the applicant
SA McLeod of Counsel for the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines

SOLICITORS:

Emanate Legal for the applicant
Miller Harris Lawyers for the respondent
Crown Solicitor for the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines
King and Company, Solicitors, for the Etheridge Shire Council

Background

1. The Court currently has before it a number of applications brought by the applicant in these proceedings which can be summarised in this way. Firstly, he seeks to amend the originating application by the addition of additional paragraphs and, indeed, relevant sections under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the MRA), which underpin the formulation of the applicant’s claim – that being specifically the addition of s 363 of the MRA.

2. The amendment, insofar as it relates to the addition of the various paragraphs to the originating application is not opposed by any party and it is therefore not necessary for me to give further consideration of that aspect of that undisputed matter. The matter which causes significant dispute between the parties, however, relates to the applicant’s application to join three parties to the proceedings. Those parties being firstly, the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; secondly, the Etheridge Shire Council; and thirdly, Ms Lurleen Alison Young.

3. The application to have these parties joined is made pursuant to rule 69 of the UCPR. As the Land Court of Queensland rules do not specify any rules relating to the joinder of parties, it is not in dispute that the provisions of the UCPR and, in particular, rule 69 apply in the matter.

4. Rule 69(1) is in the following terms:

   “69 Including, substituting or removing party

   (1)   The court may at any stage of a proceeding order that—

   (a)a person…