Land & Anor v Grabbe & Anor - [2021] QLC 1

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Land & Anor v Grabbe & Anor [2021] QLC 1

PARTIES:
David John Lisle Land
(applicant)

Susan Elizabeth Land
(applicant)

v

Anthony Grabbe
(respondent)

Lynette Grabbe
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA015-20

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining claim

DELIVERED ON: 15 January 2021

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 22 October 2020
Submissions closed 16 December 2020

HEARD AT: Cunnamulla

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER:
I determine that David John Lisle Land and Susan Elizabeth Land must pay Anthony Grabbe and Lynette Grabbe compensation in respect of MC 300085 as follows:

1. Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight dollars and Thirty-Six cents; plus

2. One Thousand and Thirty-One dollars and Eighteen cents per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicants own a mining claim on the respondents’ land – where the respondents use their land to operate a carbon abatement project under the Emissions Reduction Fund – whether and, if so, how much the applicants should compensate the respondents under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for deprivation of the surface of the land, diminution in the value of the land, time spent inspecting the claim, signage costs and the cost of preparing a valuation report

Land Court Act 2000 s 7
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85

Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2019] QLC 4
Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 36
Mitchell v Oakhill & Mitchell [1998] QLC 25

APPEARANCES: N Land (agent), authorised holder representative for MC 300085, for the applicants
T Marland (solicitor), Marland Law, for the respondents

To the casual observer, the land around Cunnamulla is monochrome, dry and lifeless. To those who are prepared to spend time and effort getting to know the country, it is a rich, varied and multi-coloured landscape.

Anthony and Lynette Grabbe have owned Nooralaba, a 21,238.28 ha property 85 km north west of Cunnamulla since 2012. They love their land and they are working hard to rehabilitate it and make it productive after a prolonged drought.

David and Susan Land find the variety and colour of the landscape in the opal they want to extract from mining claim MC 300085.

The claim was first granted in 1999 and renewed in 2009. The Lands’ predecessor applied to renew the claim again in 2018. The Lands bought the claim in February 2020.

The 2018 application for renewal remains outstanding because the parties cannot agree on the compensation to be paid. I must decide compensation, having regard to the factors in s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

A preliminary matter

The hearing ended on 22 October 2020. Mr Marland, for the Grabbes, wanted the opportunity to file written submission 14 days after receipt of the transcript and I ordered accordingly. The submissions were due on 25 November 2020. By consent, I granted an extension to 14 December 2020. The Lands…

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 Land & Anor v Grabbe & Anor 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 1
Decision Date: 15 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David John Lisle Land and Susan Elizabeth Land, the applicants, sought clarification on the amount of compensation they were required to pay to Anthony Grabbe and Lynette Grabbe, the respondents, under section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The applicants own a mining claim on the respondents’ land, which the respondents use to operate a carbon abatement project under the Emissions Reduction Fund. The dispute centred on the amount of compensation the applicants should pay for deprivation of the surface of the land, diminution in the value of the land, time spent inspecting the claim, signage costs, and the cost of preparing a valuation report.

The court had to determine the appropriate compensation payable under section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for the deprivation of the surface of the land, diminution in the value of the land, time spent inspecting the claim, signage costs, and the cost of preparing a valuation report. The court considered the statutory provisions, case law, and the submissions from both parties. The applicants argued that the compensation should be based on the actual value of the land, while the respondents argued that the compensation should be based on the potential value of the land.

The court found that the applicants were liable to pay compensation to the respondents for the deprivation of the surface of the land, diminution in the value of the land, time spent inspecting the claim, signage costs, and the cost of preparing a valuation report. The court considered the submissions from both parties and found that the applicants were liable to pay a lump sum of Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight dollars and Thirty-Six cents, plus One Thousand and Thirty-One dollars and Eighteen cents per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI. The court also noted that the applicants were entitled to an abatement of the compensation for the term of the mining claim.

The court ordered that David John Lisle Land and Susan Elizabeth Land must pay Anthony Grabbe and Lynette Grabbe compensation in respect of MC 300085 as follows: 1. Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight dollars and Thirty-Six cents; plus 2. One Thousand and Thirty-One dollars and Eighteen cents per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI.

Orders

Orders of the court

I determine that David John Lisle Land and Susan Elizabeth Land must pay Anthony Grabbe and Lynette Grabbe compensation in respect of MC 300085 as follows:

1. Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight dollars and Thirty-Six cents; plus

2. One Thousand and Thirty-One dollars and Eighteen cents per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI.

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:	Land & Anor v Grabbe & Anor [2021] QLC 1
PARTIES:	David John Lisle Land (applicant) Susan Elizabeth Land (applicant)
v
Anthony Grabbe (respondent) Lynette Grabbe (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA015-20
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining claim
DELIVERED ON:	15 January 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	22 October 2020 Submissions closed 16 December 2020
HEARD AT:	Cunnamulla
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDER:	I determine that David John Lisle Land and Susan Elizabeth Land must pay Anthony Grabbe and Lynette Grabbe compensation in respect of MC 300085 as follows: 1. Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight dollars and Thirty-Six cents; plus 2. One Thousand and Thirty-One dollars and Eighteen cents per year for the term of the renewal, indexed to CPI.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicants own a mining claim on the respondents’ land – where the respondents use their land to operate a carbon abatement project under the Emissions Reduction Fund – whether and, if so, how much the applicants should compensate the respondents under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for deprivation of the surface of the land, diminution in the value of the land, time spent inspecting the claim, signage costs and the cost of preparing a valuation report Land Court Act 2000 s 7 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85 Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2019] QLC 4 Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 36 Mitchell v Oakhill & Mitchell [1998] QLC 25
APPEARANCES:	N Land (agent), authorised holder representative for MC 300085, for the applicants T Marland (solicitor), Marland Law, for the respondents