TREVOR JAMES LEE (appellant/respondent/appellant) v KOKSTAD MINING PTY LTD (ACN 093 248 527) (respondent/appellant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 10019 of 2006 AML No 193 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Land and Resources Tribunal at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
3 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
27 March 2007
JUDGES:
Jerrard JA, Wilson and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Jerrard JA dissenting in part
ORDER:
1. Declare that the orders made by the Land and Resources Tribunal constituted by Koppenol P on 6 December 2005 having been made without jurisdiction were of no effect 2. The appeal is dismissed 3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal
CATCHWORDS:
MINING LAW – LEGISLATION RELATING TO MINING FOR MINERALS – MINER’S RIGHTS AND MINING LICENCES, TENURES AND INTERESTS – MINING TENURES AND INTERESTS – NATURE OF TENURE AND INTERESTS WHICH MAY BE GRANTED AND OVER WHAT LANDS – whether the Land and Resources Tribunal’s interpretation of s 307 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) was correct
A J Morris QC, with AC Barlow, for the appellant H B Fraser QC, with D Williams, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Kinneally Miley for the appellant Zoe Farmer, Lawyer for the respondent
JERRARD JA: On 7 February 2005 the Land and Resources Tribunal (“the LRT”) established by the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (Qld) (“the LRT Act”), and then constituted by the Mining Referee Mr Windridge, recommended under s 269(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (“the MRA”) to the Honourable The Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Mining Lease No 50207 be granted over the whole of the application area for a term of 10 years. On 6 December 2005 the LRT, then constituted by President Koppenol, set aside that decision, and ordered that the appellant Mr Lee lodge his objections, if any, to the grant of that mining lease by 23 December 2005.
On 23 October 2006 the LRT, then constituted by Deputy President Smith and Mr Windridge Mining Referee sitting as a panel,[1] declared that President Koppenol’s order of 6 December 2005 did not authorise the LRT to hear Mr Lee’s objection, even though lodged within the time specified in President Koppenol’s order. The LRT also ruled on 23 October 2006 that the respondent Kokstad Mining Pty Ltd had not amended its application for that mining…
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 Lee v Kokstad Mining Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lee v Kokstad Mining Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 248
Case
[2007] QCA 248
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lee, the appellant, sought to challenge the Land and Resources Tribunal's interpretation of section 307 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The dispute centred on the Tribunal's decision regarding the nature of the tenure and interests which could be granted over certain lands under the Act. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the legislation in question.
The court was required to decide if the Tribunal's interpretation of section 307 was accurate and whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to make the orders it did. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had misconstrued the Act, leading to an incorrect understanding of the types of tenures and interests that could be granted over specified lands. The court had to assess the statutory language, legislative intent, and the Tribunal's application of the law to determine if its interpretation was correct.
The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the Act, leading to an erroneous conclusion regarding the nature of the tenures and interests that could be granted. The court held that the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction when making the orders it did on 6 December 2005. Consequently, the orders made by the Tribunal were declared to be of no effect. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Declare that the orders made by the Land and Resources Tribunal constituted by Koppenol P on
6 December 2005 having been made without jurisdiction were of no effect
2. The appeal is dismissed
3. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal