Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd - [2022] QLC 10

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd [2022] QLC 10

PARTIES:
Stanley William Hoffman
(applicant)

v

Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd ACN 627 625 209
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA028-22

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 22 August 2022

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 19 August 2022

HEARD AT: Heard on the Papers

MEMBER: JR McNamara

ORDERS:
I determine for ML 20324:

1.   Three Hundred and Forty-Two Dollars and Ten Cents ($342.10) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($311 plus 10%); and

2.   Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%).

I determine for ML 20325:

1.   One Hundred and Fourteen Dollars and Forty Cents ($114.40) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($104 plus 10%); and

2.   Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%).

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for the renewal of mining leases situated on the land of the respondents – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281

Guernier and Anor v Chelsea on the Park [2021] QLC 13, distinguished

Hoffman v Hatfield [2019] QLC 48, cited
Kelly v Chelsea on the Park [2020] QLC 36, distinguished
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell [1998] QLC 25; (1998) QLCR 66, applied
Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7, cited

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

Background

Stanley Hoffman is an alluvial gold and tin miner. He holds three mining leases on Spring Hill Station, a pastoral station which is owned by Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd. ML 20624 was granted in 2019, after a recommendation from this Court to approve the mining lease application.[1] Mr Hoffman now seeks to renew the other two leases, ML 20324 and ML 20325 (‘the Leases’). Before the renewals can be granted, compensation with the landowner of Spring Hill Station must be agreed or determined by the Land Court.[2]
[1]Hoffman v Hatfield [2019] QLC 48.
[2]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281.

Court orders invited Mr Hoffman to file and serve a compensation statement and for the then landowners, Travis and Amber Hatfield, to file a response, including all evidence relied on to support the statement or response. Mr Hoffman also had the right of reply. On 8 August 2022, after all material was filed in accordance with the orders, Spring Hill Station was sold to Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd.

In response to correspondence from the Court, the solicitor for Blue Bay Tas…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd 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: [2022] QLC 10
Decision Date: 22 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd dealt with an application for the renewal of mining leases on the land owned by the respondents. The applicant sought to renew these leases and, in doing so, requested compensation under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court was tasked with determining whether compensation was payable and, if so, what the appropriate amount should be. The applicants argued that the renewal of the leases would result in a significant reduction in the use of the land, warranting compensation. The respondents, on the other hand, contested the extent of any such diminution and the quantum of compensation, if any, that should be awarded.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the renewal of the mining leases resulted in a diminution of the use of the land and, if so, what compensation should be paid under the relevant statute. The court considered the nature and extent of the diminution in land use, the statutory provisions governing compensation for such diminutions, and the applicable legislative framework. The court also had to determine the appropriate method for calculating any compensation, including the application of the 10% uplift for the diminution of the use of the land.

The court found that the renewal of the leases did result in a diminution of the use of the land. The court calculated the compensation payable for this diminution by applying the statutory uplift of 10% to the base amount. Additionally, the court awarded administration costs, which were also indexed to the Consumer Price Index. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the evidence presented, the statutory requirements, and the principles of fairness and equity. The court concluded that the compensation payable for the diminution of the use of the land was $342.10 per annum for one lease and $114.40 per annum for the other, with both amounts subject to an annual indexation. Administration costs were also awarded at $221 per annum, indexed to the CPI.

The final orders of the court determined the specific compensation payable for each lease, as well as the administration costs. For Mining Lease 20324, the court ordered an annual payment of $342.10 for the diminution of the use of the land and $221 for administration costs. For Mining Lease 20325, the court ordered an annual payment of $114.40 for the diminution of the use of the land and $221 for administration costs. Both amounts for diminution and administration costs were to be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index.

Orders

Orders of the court

I determine for ML 20324:

1. Three Hundred and Forty-Two Dollars and Ten Cents ($342.10) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($311 plus 10%); and

2. Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%).

I determine for ML 20325:

1. One Hundred and Fourteen Dollars and Forty Cents ($114.40) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($104 plus 10%); and

2. Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%).

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:	Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd [2022] QLC 10
PARTIES:	Stanley William Hoffman (applicant) v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd ACN 627 625 209 (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA028-22
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	22 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 19 August 2022
HEARD AT:	Heard on the Papers
MEMBER:	JR McNamara
ORDERS:	I determine for ML 20324: 1. Three Hundred and Forty-Two Dollars and Ten Cents ($342.10) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($311 plus 10%); and 2. Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%). I determine for ML 20325: 1. One Hundred and Fourteen Dollars and Forty Cents ($114.40) per annum payable on the anniversary of the date of grant of the renewal representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($104 plus 10%); and 2. Two Hundred and Twenty-One Dollars ($221) pa in administration costs, indexed annually to CPI ($210 plus 10%).
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for the renewal of mining leases situated on the land of the respondents – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281 Guernier and Anor v Chelsea on the Park [2021] QLC 13, distinguished Hoffman v Hatfield [2019] QLC 48, cited Kelly v Chelsea on the Park [2020] QLC 36, distinguished Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell [1998] QLC 25; (1998) QLCR 66, applied Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7, cited
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable