Krieg v Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation - [2021] QLC 28

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Krieg v Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation [2021] QLC 28

PARTIES: Kenneth John Krieg
(applicant)

v

Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation

(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA499-20 (ML 2720)

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of a mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 23 August 2021

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 6 August 2021
Matter allocated on 20 August 2021

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: JR McNamara

ORDER/S:
1.     I determine that Kenneth John Krieg must pay Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation compensation in respect of ML 2720 as follows:

a.   Six hundred and thirty-six dollars and zero cents ($636); plus

b.   Three hundred and sixty dollars and zero cents ($360) per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI.

2.     The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(a) within 1 month of the grant of the renewal of ML 2720 by the Department of Resources.

3.     The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(b) annually on the anniversary of the grant of the renewal of ML 2720 by the Department of Resources.

4.     The application by the respondent for costs is partially allowed.

5.     The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent the sum of One Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,375) to the respondent within thirty (30) days of the handing down of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant requires compensation to be decided – where the respondent at different stages of negotiations referred to conduct and compensation – where the respondents offer was contingent on agreement to pay legal and valuation costs – where the respondent is an Aboriginal Corporation – where the applicant is subject to the laws of general application including the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2004 (Qld) – where valuer’s report was provided – where compensation was determined

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – OTHER MATTERS – where costs were considered –– where the Court considered the discretion to award costs for ‘legal costs’ ought not be exercised – where the Court was assisted by the valuer’s report – where each party should bear half the cost of the valuation report

Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) s 281(3)
Land Court Act 2000 (Qld) s 7, s 34

Australian Asiatic Gems Pty Ltd v Grabbe & Anor[2021] QLC 25, cited
Deimel v Phelps & Anor (No 2) [2019] QLC 21, cited
ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (No 2) (2016) 37 QLCR 186; [2016] QLAC 3, considered
Mio Art Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (No 3); Greener Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Brisbane City Council (No 3) (2013) 34 QLCR 222; [2013] QLAC 3, cited
Guernier & Anor v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2021] QLC 13, considered
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) & Ors (1986) ATPR 40-748, considered
Land & Anor v…

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 Krieg v Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation 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: [2021] QLC 28
Decision Date: 23 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Krieg v Woolgar Valley Aboriginal Corporation, the applicant sought a decision on compensation for the mining of minerals on land owned by the respondent, an Aboriginal Corporation. The applicant, subject to the laws of general application including the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2004 (Qld), argued that the compensation determined was inadequate. The legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the amount of compensation payable for the mining operation and the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court examined the negotiations between the parties, which included references to conduct and compensation. The respondent's offer was conditional on the applicant agreeing to pay legal and valuation costs. The court took into account the valuer's report provided during the proceedings, which assisted in determining the compensation. The court also considered the general principles of equity and fairness in its determination. The court held that the compensation offered by the respondent was reasonable, given the circumstances, and the applicant's claim for additional compensation was dismissed.

In terms of costs, the court exercised its discretion to order that each party bear half of the cost of the valuation report. The court did not consider it appropriate to award costs for 'legal costs' in this matter, as the circumstances did not warrant such an award. The court's decision was based on the principle of fairness and the overall conduct of the parties in the proceedings.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for additional compensation and ordered each party to bear half of the cost of the valuation report. No costs were awarded for 'legal costs'.

Orders