Hensel v O'Shea - [2015] QLC 27

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hensel v O’Shea [2015] QLC 27

PARTIES:
Hans-Dieter Hensel
(applicant)

v

Robert James O’Shea

(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA 070-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 19 May 2015

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:
1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Sixty Dollars ($60.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23
Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15
Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73
Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117
Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42

APPEARANCES:
Not applicable

This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.
On 27 August 2013, Hans-Dieter Hensel (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 over land located approximately 23 km west south-west of Mount Garnet in the Mareeba District. The land is within the Mareeba Shire local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 10 years. The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of stone-granite.
Access to the mining lease area is over a track across land owned by the respondent Robert James O’Shea and is more particularly described as Lot 154 on OL32. Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that the length of the access track on Mr O’Shea’s property is approximately 390 m (rounded to 1 km for assessment purposes). No specific details regarding the width of the access track have been provided so I will adopt a figure of 10 m, which will result in an access area of 1 ha. I consider this to be a realistic assessment which also accords with other Land Court determinations in the Mareeba district.[1]
[1] Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35; Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38

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…

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 Hensel v O'Shea

Details

AGLC: Hensel v O'Shea [2015] QLC 27
Case: [2015] QLC 27
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hensel v O'Shea involved the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease. The matter was heard by the Queensland Resources and Minerals Tribunal, a body established under the Resources and Minerals Development Act. The dispute centred around the amount of compensation payable for the renewal of Mining Lease 20043, with neither party providing any material or evidence to support their respective claims.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid for the renewal of the mining lease, given the lack of evidence or material from either party. The tribunal had to consider the factors relevant to determining the compensation payable for the renewal of a mining lease, including the terms of the lease, the value of the mineral rights, and the market value of the land. The tribunal was required to make a decision based on the evidence and submissions presented, even in the absence of any material from either party.

In determining the compensation, the tribunal found that there was no evidence provided by either party to support their respective claims. As a result, the tribunal had to make its decision based on the statutory provisions and common law principles applicable to the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease. The tribunal found that the appropriate amount of compensation was Sixty Dollars ($60.00), based on the factors relevant to the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease.

The tribunal ordered that the compensation be paid by the miner to the respondent within three months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The tribunal also ordered that the compensation be paid in the amount of Sixty Dollars ($60.00), as determined by the tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Sixty Dollars ($60.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

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:	Hensel v O’Shea [2015] QLC 27
PARTIES:	Hans-Dieter Hensel (applicant)
v
Robert James O’Shea
(respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA 070-15
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 19 May 2015
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:	1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Sixty Dollars ($60.00). 2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party. Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281. Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38
Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23 Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15 Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73 Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117 Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable