Hensel v Scott - [2015] QLC 26

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hensel v Scott & Anor [2015] QLC 26

PARTIES:
Hans-Dieter Hensel
(applicant)

v

Alan John Scott and Jane Alice Scott

(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA071-15

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 Eight Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($860.00).

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.
Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that the area of Mining Lease 20043 is 6.875 ha [rounded to 7 ha for assessment purposes]. Access to the mining lease area is over a 1.57 km track across land owned by Alan John Scott and Jane Alice Scott and is more particularly described as Lot 137 on OL31 Occupation Licence 137. 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 1.57 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,…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: Hensel v Scott [2015] QLC 26
Case: [2015] QLC 26
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hensel v Scott involved a dispute concerning the determination of compensation for a mining lease renewal. The parties involved were Hensel, the miner, and Scott, the respondent. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the tribunal being tasked with determining the amount of compensation due for the renewal of Mining Lease 20043. Both parties were required to provide material to the tribunal to assist in determining the compensation; however, no material was provided by either party.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was to determine the appropriate compensation amount for the renewal of the mining lease. Given the lack of material provided by either party, the tribunal had to rely on its own assessment and understanding of the relevant factors to be considered in determining compensation for such a lease renewal. The tribunal was required to consider various factors, including the terms of the lease, the duration of the lease, the nature of the mining activity, and any potential impacts on the land and surrounding environment.

In determining the compensation, the tribunal considered the general principles and statutory provisions governing mining lease compensation. The tribunal found that, given the circumstances, a compensation amount of Eight Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($860.00) was appropriate. The tribunal made it clear that this amount was based on its own assessment and understanding of the factors involved, as neither party had provided any material to assist in the determination. The tribunal further ordered that the compensation be paid by the miner to the respondent within three months of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Eight Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($860.00).

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 Scott & Anor [2015] QLC 26
PARTIES:	Hans-Dieter Hensel (applicant)
v
Alan John Scott and Jane Alice Scott
(respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA071-15
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 Eight Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($860.00). 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