Hewitt v Tully

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hewitt & Ors v Tully & Anor [2016] QLC 72
PARTIES: Darcy John Hewitt, Christopher Lloyd Hewitt and Helen Hewitt
(applicants)
v
Mark Durack Tully and Elizabeth Ann Tully
(respondents)
FILE NO: MRA231-16
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease.
DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 29 August 2016
HEARD AT: On the papers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

GJ Smith

ORDERS:

1.     In respect of ML 60379 compensation is determined in the sum of $250.00 per annum.

2.     The applicants pay compensation to the respondents the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – referral – renewal – mining and access areas – determination of compensation – absence of expert or valuation evidence – use of Court judgments for determination purposes.

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279A

Keefe v Georgina Pastoral Company [2013] QLC 67

Stoverink  v Higgins [2016] QLC 26

Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76

Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

  1. This proceeding concerns a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of Mining Lease 60379 (ML 60379).

Background

  1. The applicants, Darcy John Hewitt, Christopher Lloyd Hewitt and Helen Hewitt (the miners) seek the renewal of a mining lease located on land described as Lot 1 on Plan BG7. The area relevant to this determination concerns a 7.8 ha mining area and a 1.48 km access track across land owned by the respondents, Mark Durack Tully and Elizabeth Ann Tully (the landowners).  The land is located approximately 78 km north-east of the town of Quilpie within Quilpie Shire Local Government area and is used for grazing purposes. 

Relevant Legislation

  1. 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 Court.  In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

  2. Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

    “(i)     deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;

    (ii) diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (iii)diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (iv)severance of any part…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hewitt v Tully and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] QLC 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicants sought a determination of compensation for the renewal of mining lease ML 60379. The respondents, who hold the mining lease, opposed the claim. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Land Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Slattery. The central issue before the Court was the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease in the absence of expert or valuation evidence. This involved assessing the use of previous Court judgments for determining compensation purposes.

The Court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to address the issue of compensation for mining lease renewals. Given the absence of expert evidence or specific valuation, the Court turned to prior judgments to ascertain a reasonable compensation amount. The Court considered precedents and the nature of the mining lease in question, focusing on the mining and access areas involved. Ultimately, the Court determined that the compensation should be set at $250.00 per annum, aligning with similar cases and the statutory framework governing mining leases.

The Court's decision was grounded in a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, ensuring a fair and reasonable outcome in the absence of direct evidence. The Court also outlined the payment schedule, stipulating that compensation is payable by the applicants to the respondents within two months of the mining lease renewal notification by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, and subsequently on the anniversary of the lease renewal. This detailed approach ensures clarity and enforceability of the compensation terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of ML 60379 compensation is determined in the sum of $250.00 per annum.

2. The applicants pay compensation to the respondents the amount set out in order 1 within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the renewal of the mining lease.

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.