Hoffman v Hatfield - [2019] QLC 48

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hoffman v Hatfield [2019] QLC 48

PARTIES: Stanley William Hoffman
(applicant)

v

Amber Hatfield & Travis Hatfield
(non-active objectors)

FILE NO: MRA070-19 (MLA 20624)

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objection

DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2019

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 11 December 2019

HEARD AT: Brisbane

PRESIDENT: FY Kingham

ORDER: I recommend to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989, that ML 20624 be granted for the purposes applied for, except for living quarters/camp.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant applied for a mining lease over a grazing property to mine alluvial gold and tin – where the mining lease applied for formed part of a greater mining project comprising other mining leases – where the objectors to the mining lease did not elect to be active parties in the hearing – whether a change in the background land tenure affected the validity of the application – where there had been significant delays in progressing the mining lease application – whether the applicant would develop and utilise the resource – whether the proposed mine is an appropriate land use in the context of the current and prospective uses of the land by the landowners

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 252, s 252A, s 252B, s 269(4), s 392

Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts & Anor (2011) 180 LGERA 99; [2011] FCAFC 59, cited
Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough & Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473; [1975] HCA 17, cited
Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451; [1995] FCAFC 1726, cited

APPEARANCES: C Mackney (agent), Avoca Tenement Consulting Pty Ltd, for the applicant
No appearances for the objectors

Mr Hoffman has applied for a mining lease (MLA 20624) to mine alluvial gold and tin ore on Spring Hill Station, approximately 60 km north-west of Mount Carbine, North Queensland. The owners of the property, Mr and Mrs Hatfield, lodged an objection to the grant of the mining lease, but did not elect to be active parties in the hearing. That means they played no active part in the Court process.[1] Nevertheless, I must consider their objection when deciding what recommendation to make on Mr Hoffman’s application.[2] In addition, I must consider statutory criteria specified in s 269(4) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

Has Mr Hoffman complied with the provisions of the MRA?[3]

[1]See Practice Direction No 4 of 2018 – Procedure for Mining Objection Hearings, 30 April 2018.

[2]MRA s 268(3).

[3]MRA s 269(4)(a).

The application has an unusually lengthy history. Mr Hoffman lodged the application in July 2009, but did not publicly advertise or serve it on Mr and Mrs Hatfield until 2019. I will return to the explanation for the delay later in these…

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 Hoffman v Hatfield

Details

AGLC: Hoffman v Hatfield [2019] QLC 48
Case: [2019] QLC 48
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hoffman v Hatfield involved an applicant who sought a mining lease over a grazing property for the purpose of mining alluvial gold and tin. The mining lease applied for was part of a larger mining project that encompassed other mining leases. The objectors to the mining lease did not choose to be active parties in the hearing. The primary concern was whether a change in the background land tenure would impact the validity of the application, considering that there had been significant delays in progressing the mining lease application. The court also had to consider whether the applicant would develop and utilise the resource and whether the proposed mine was an appropriate land use in the context of the current and prospective uses of the land by the landowners.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the change in land tenure rendered the application invalid, assessing the delays in processing the mining lease application, and evaluating whether the applicant intended to develop and utilise the resource. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the proposed mine was an appropriate land use, given the current and prospective uses of the land by the landowners.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the change in land tenure did not affect the validity of the mining lease application. The court acknowledged the delays in processing the application but found that they did not constitute a valid reason to deny the lease. The court also found that the applicant had demonstrated a clear intention to develop and utilise the resource. In terms of land use, the court concluded that the proposed mine was an appropriate land use in the context of the land's current and prospective uses by the landowners.

The court recommended that the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy grant the mining lease, except for the living quarters/camp. This recommendation was based on the applicant's demonstrated intention to develop and utilise the resource and the court's conclusion that the proposed mine was an appropriate land use.

Orders

Orders of the court

I recommend to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989, that ML 20624 be granted for the purposes applied for, except for living quarters/camp.

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 Hatfield [2019] QLC 48
PARTIES:	Stanley William Hoffman (applicant)
v
Amber Hatfield & Travis Hatfield (non-active objectors)
FILE NO:	MRA070-19 (MLA 20624)
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of application for mining lease and objection
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	11 December 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
PRESIDENT:	FY Kingham
ORDER:	I recommend to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989, that ML 20624 be granted for the purposes applied for, except for living quarters/camp.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant applied for a mining lease over a grazing property to mine alluvial gold and tin – where the mining lease applied for formed part of a greater mining project comprising other mining leases – where the objectors to the mining lease did not elect to be active parties in the hearing – whether a change in the background land tenure affected the validity of the application – where there had been significant delays in progressing the mining lease application – whether the applicant would develop and utilise the resource – whether the proposed mine is an appropriate land use in the context of the current and prospective uses of the land by the landowners Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 252, s 252A, s 252B, s 269(4), s 392 Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts & Anor (2011) 180 LGERA 99; [2011] FCAFC 59, cited Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough & Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473; [1975] HCA 17, cited Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451; [1995] FCAFC 1726, cited
APPEARANCES:	C Mackney (agent), Avoca Tenement Consulting Pty Ltd, for the applicant No appearances for the objectors