Kidson v NBT Pty Ltd Trust
[2008] QLC 99
•22 May 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Kidson & Anor v NBT Pty Ltd Trust [2008] QLC 0099
PARTIES:Application by Sue Janet Kidson and Phillip John Kidson (applicant miners) and NBT Pty Ltd Trust (respondent landowner)
FILE NO/S:MLC00038/2008
PROCEEDING: Application to determine compensation
DELIVERED ON: 22 May 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
PRESIDING MEMBER: Mr FW Windridge, Judicial Registrar
ORDER/S:1. Compensation determined at $55.
2.Such compensation to be paid by the miner to the landowner within 30 days of notification of the grant of the mining lease.
3.A copy of this determination be provided to The Honourable The Minister for Mines and Energy by the Registrar of the Land Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS: COMPENSATION – ACCESS ONLY – GRAZING PROPERTY
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s. 281
Mining Right of Way Act (RSBC 1996) Chapter 294
Smith v Cameron [1986-1987] 11 QLCR 64
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported
Kingsley v Struber & Anor [2006] QLRT 24
Dembowski & Anor v NBT Pty Ltd [2006] QLRT 45
APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the papers
Background
This is an application under s. 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation for the effect upon the respondent landowners (NBT Pty Ltd Trust) of the grant of the applicant’s mining lease number 20479 in the Mareeba District.
The lease is located on Palmerville Holding and access to the lease is through Lot 2, Lot 1 (Karma Waters) and Lot 4567 (Bellevue Station). The balance of the access is Road Reserve under the control of the Cook Shire Council. The matter for consideration here is the access route that transverses Lot 4567 on Bellevue. This land is held by the respondent landowners NBT Pty Ltd Trust.
The parties have been unable to resolve the issue of compensation and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination. Whilst it is within the power of the parties to come to agreement on any issues, the power of the Court is limited to s. 281. The landowner seeks the sum of $250 per annum from each leaseholder (miner) based on his (the landowner’s) intentions to implement occupational health and safety policies.
The Court has given directions in relation to time frames for submissions, and this matter has been dealt with on the papers. The landowner has lodged a submission not related to s. 281 of the MRA, but raising other issues. The applicant miner has lodged a detailed submission in relation to the access track through Bellevue Station and documented his (the miner’s) attempts to resolve the issue. No site visit has been conducted. The Court has attempted to carry out various site inspections in late 2007 and early 2008. However, adverse weather conditions have thwarted all attempts to visit the area. It is hoped some inspections will be carried out in late 2008 or early 2009.
Compensation
Relevantly, s. 281(3)(a) requires the Court to settle the amount of compensation an owner of land is entitled to as 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 of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner;
(v) any surface rights of access;
(vi) all loss or expense that arises;
as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease”.
Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation determination. In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as follows:
“(4) In assessing the amount of compensation payable under subsection (3)—
…(e) an additional amount shall be determined to reflect the compulsory nature of action taken under this part which amount … shall be not less than 10% of the aggregate amount determined under subsection (3).”
The matters which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s. 281(3) of the Act. Although s. 281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. Whilst the Court is only bound by its own legislation, the following past appeal cases offer some guidance to methodology that could be used in arriving at a determination. In Smith v Cameron [1986-1987] 11 QLCR 64, the Land Court held at p. 74…
“The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. No doubt each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances but it seems to me that either method is open to the valuer.”
In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, the Court at p. 146 said:
“the method of assessment remains a matter which will be governed by the facts and circumstances of each case in which event emphasis may shift from one method to another.”
In considering Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported, the President of the Land Court, referring to s. 281(3) of the MRA, found:
“the latter section does not prescribe a method of assessment. In my view, as long as the amount of compensation finally determined sufficiently accounts for each of the matters referred to in the sub-section, it is not necessary to quantify an amount in respect of each of the matters referred to.
Deprivation of possession: The matter under consideration is that section of the access road that traverses Lot 4567. There is no deprivation of possession.
Diminution of value: There is no valuation evidence to consider. It is difficult to find any significant reduction of value for an access road that is used infrequently by the miner, and not at all in adverse weather conditions. It appears that a number of other persons use the access road at other times.
Diminution of use: There is no evidence of diminution of use.
Severance: The renewal of the lease and that part of the nominated access route that traverses Lot 4567 will not cause severance of one part of the property from any other part of the property.
Surface rights of access: This is the only issue to be decided here. The miner indicates the total length of the access road is some 15 kilometres, at least 6 kilometres being a gazetted public road. It is in all probability only a short distance and maybe some 10 metres wide, and no doubt is used by a number of other persons for various reasons. I assess loss of access to be of nominal effect.
Loss or expense: There is no evidence of any other loss or expense that will occur because of the grant of the lease. Issues raised by the landowner do not relate to the mining operations or the access requirements.
Additional 10%: In respect of s. 238(4) (e), no submissions were made. There does not appear to be any reason or special circumstance why the premium should be increased, and therefore no more than the statutory 10% should be added to the general award.
Determination
There will be a negligible effect, if any at all, on the management of the pastoral holding. I am not satisfied that any award other than a nominal award is justified. I take into account that no part of the mining lease is located on this property, and this award will reflect more or less the nuisance value of persons entering the property and using the access to travel to the lease, as against any actual mining by this miner occurring on the property. Had there been some disturbance from mining, a different approach may be justified. I note that under the Mining Right of Way Act (RSBC 1996), no compensation for access is payable, the right to mine giving a common law right of access to the mining tenement. Having regard to the foregoing, I determine compensation for access to be the sum of $50 for the term of the lease.
(a) Access (s. 281 (3)(v) $50.00
(b) Additional 10% (s. 281(4)(e)) $5.00
Total$55.00
There was no submission in relation to the times, terms and manner of payment. Due to the small quantum involved, I consider that payment of compensation should be in full and made within 30 days of notification of renewal of the lease by the Mining Registrar.
It is recommended that the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water give some consideration to the adoption of legislation similar to the Mining Right of Way Act (RSBC 19996) when amendments to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 are being considered. There would be considerable savings in time, money and resources to the parties, the Department and this Court if appropriate amendments were made in relation to access provisions.
It should be noted by the landowner that he (or they) have no right of veto over access as nominated by the miner and have no right to prevent access where a miner or prospector is exercising his (or her) rights under a duly issued licence or permit. The Crown reserves the rights to all minerals ( except under certain circumstances of prior legislation) and petroleum (s. 8 MRA) and has all the necessary powers (s. 2 MRA) to grant rights of access, mining and removal of mineral.
The landowner suggests that a “key” arrangement be implemented for access along the access road. In my 25 years experience as Mining Warden, Mining Referee and Judicial Registrar, I can assure the landowner that the miner, his servants, agents and contractors (entitled to use the access road to enter the lease area) do not work 9 to 5 hours Monday to Friday. The “key” idea is simplistic but unworkable.
The matters raised by the landowner in his written correspondence do not comply with Practice Directions issued by the Court. The landowner ignores such directions at his own peril. The power of the Court is limited to the provisions of s. 281 of the MRA.
FW WINDRIDGE
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0