Hudson v Pedracini - [2014] QLC 10

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hudson & Ors v Pedracini [2014] QLC 10

PARTIES:
Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and Michael James Stout
(applicants)

v

Reginald Joseph Pedracini and Beverley Isabell Jane Pedracini
(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA338-11

DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:
Application for Determination of Compensation

ML 30031 - Determination of Compensation payable by Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and Michael James Stout to Reginald Joseph Pedracini and Beverley Isabell Jane Pedracini.

DELIVERED ON: 19 March 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Cairns

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDER:
1. Compensation in respect of ML 30031 is determined at $110 per annum.

2. The miner is to pay the said compensation to the landowner in advance with the first payment to be made within two months from notification of renewal of the mining lease by the mining registrar and payable thereafter on the anniversary of the granting of the renewal of the mining lease.

CATCHWORDS:
Mining Lease – Determination of Compensation – Compulsory Nature of Action – Compensation

Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 279A, 281, 363

Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell 10 March 1998 unreported
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139
SG & PM Smith v RA Cameron [1986] 11 QLCR 64

Snowmist Pty Ltd v Cantoni [2011] QLC 0052

Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93

Wellington v Pedracini [2011] QLC 0021

Re: Wilkins & Mudge [2009] QLC 0075.

APPEARANCES: The matter is determined on the papers.

Background

The Court has before it a referral for determination of compensation in respect of renewal of ML 30031.
Compensation in respect of a renewal of a mining lease must be settled before that renewal can be granted. So much is provided by s 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.
The mining lease is located on a property described as lease number PH 728 County of Gilbert Parish of Mistletoe, which is generally referred to as Mistletoe Station.
An aerial photograph of ML 30031 provided to the Court by Mr Hudson who acts for all three of the proposed miners shows a treatment plant, workshop, kitchen, facilities block, storage area, two caravans, a Telstra installation and a truck shed.
The lease is generally a regular rectangular area which is said to be one hectare in size.
The original mining lease dates from 1 February 1982 and has been renewed regularly in 1998 and 2005. In each case the term was 6 or 6.6 years. In the current application the Applicants seek a term of 6 years.
The application for renewal of the mining lease appears to have been lodged with the Mining Registrar at Georgetown in about November 2010.
The application makes no reference to the area of any access road but it is clear from the Queensland Government map attached to the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation mining lease report that access is proposed over an area about 2 km long and 10 m wide. In their material filed…

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 Hudson v Pedracini 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: [2014] QLC 10
Decision Date: 19 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hudson v Pedracini, the High Court was tasked with determining the compensation payable to a landowner in respect of a mining lease over their property. The dispute arose from the compulsory acquisition of the landowner’s property under the Mining Act. The landowner argued that the compensation was inadequate and sought a higher amount. The miner, in turn, contested the claim, asserting that the compensation already provided was sufficient.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of appropriate compensation for the mining lease, specifically ML 30031. The court was required to consider whether the compensation offered by the miner was just and whether the statutory framework governing the compulsory acquisition of land and the payment of compensation was correctly applied. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the compensation was payable in advance and if so, the timing of such payments.

The court held that the compensation payable was to be determined based on the statutory provisions and precedents. It found that the compensation of $110 per annum was appropriate and in line with the statutory guidelines. The court also ruled that the compensation could be paid in advance, with the first payment to be made within two months of the renewal of the mining lease and subsequent payments to be made annually. This decision was grounded in the statutory requirement for advance payments and the need to provide the landowner with certainty regarding their financial entitlements.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the compensation in respect of ML 30031 be set at $110 per annum, payable in advance. The miner was mandated to make the first payment within two months of the notification of the renewal of the mining lease and thereafter annually on the anniversary of the granting of the renewal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation in respect of ML 30031 is determined at $110 per annum.

2. The miner is to pay the said compensation to the landowner in advance with the first payment to be made within two months from notification of renewal of the mining lease by the mining registrar and payable thereafter on the anniversary of the granting 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.

CITATION:	Hudson & Ors v Pedracini [2014] QLC 10
PARTIES:	Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and Michael James Stout (applicants)
v
Reginald Joseph Pedracini and Beverley Isabell Jane Pedracini (respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA338-11
DIVISION:	Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:	Application for Determination of Compensation ML 30031 - Determination of Compensation payable by Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and Michael James Stout to Reginald Joseph Pedracini and Beverley Isabell Jane Pedracini.
DELIVERED ON:	19 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Cairns
MEMBER:	WL Cochrane
ORDER:	1. Compensation in respect of ML 30031 is determined at $110 per annum. 2. The miner is to pay the said compensation to the landowner in advance with the first payment to be made within two months from notification of renewal of the mining lease by the mining registrar and payable thereafter on the anniversary of the granting of the renewal of the mining lease.
CATCHWORDS:	Mining Lease – Determination of Compensation – Compulsory Nature of Action – Compensation Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 279A, 281, 363 Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell 10 March 1998 unreported Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139 SG & PM Smith v RA Cameron [1986] 11 QLCR 64 Snowmist Pty Ltd v Cantoni [2011] QLC 0052 Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93 Wellington v Pedracini [2011] QLC 0021 Re: Wilkins & Mudge [2009] QLC 0075.
APPEARANCES:	The matter is determined on the papers.