Malaco Leichhardt Pty Ltd v Craxdale Pty Ltd as Trustee

[2014] QLC 49

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Malaco Leichhardt Pty Ltd v Craxdale Pty Ltd as Trustee [2014] QLC 49

PARTIES:

Malaco Leichhardt Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Craxdale Pty Ltd as Trustee
(respondent)

FILE NOS

MRA388-11
MRA886-11

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining leases

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed on 23 October 2014

HEARD AT:

Heard on the Papers

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDERS:

1. Compensation for ML 2492 is determined in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per annum.

2. Compensation for ML 2784 is determined in the amount of Four Hundred Dollars ($400) per annum.

3. The compensation is payable by the applicant to the respondent within 30 days of the grant of renewal of the respective lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the grant of its renewal.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – lack of material from parties

Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 281

Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26

Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported
Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139
Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

Background

1. The applicant miner is seeking the renewal, for a term of 21 years, of Mining Lease (ML) 2492 which is 3.96 ha of land used for cattle grazing and breeding 42 km west of Dobbyn, in the Cloncurry area. The lease is for mining copper ore. It is Court file MRA388-11. The other matter, Court file MRA886-11 is for ML 2784, which has an area of 8.094 ha. A 21 year term is also being sought and the land is also used for cattle grazing and breeding. It is 3 km west of Dobbyn. The purpose of ML 2784 is for mining silver and copper ores and rare earths. As the applicant miner and respondent landowner have not filed a compensation agreement with the Mining Registrar that official has referred the matter of compensation to the Court for determination. ML 2492 was referred on 28 September 2011 and ML 2784 on 22 November 2011.

2. The Court wrote to the parties setting timetables for the provision by them of evidence and submissions relevant to the question of compensation. Those directions have not been complied with although extensions of time were granted. On 2 October 2014 the Court wrote to the parties advising that under Rule 36A of the Land Court Rules 2000 the Court would determine the matters without an oral hearing unless there was an objection, with reasons, by 4.00pm on 23 October 2014. Also that any material or submissions must be forwarded by then. There has been no response from either party. However the Court does have the benefit of the material provided by the Mining Registrar.

The applicable law

1. Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed at the office of the Mining Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In these matters, no agreements in registrable form have been lodged with the Mining Registrar and the matters have been referred to the Court for determination.

2. The issues which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s 281(3) and (4) of the MRA.

3. Although s 281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. In Smith v Cameron,[1] the Land Court held:

   “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.”

[1](1986-87) 11 QLCR 64, 74 – 75.

1. In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd,[2] the Land Court 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.”

   [2](1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, 146.

2. In Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell,[3] the then 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.”

   [3](10 March 1998) unreported.

3. In determining compensation under s 281 of the MRA, the Court has adopted the same approach that Deputy President Smith (as he then was) took in Richardson v Barrett.[4] The matters set out in the section are matters to be taken into account in determining compensation, rather than being separate heads of compensation requiring separate treatment to arrive at an accumulated figure.

   [4][2001] QLRT 89, 9, 10, 14.

4. The overriding principle is of equivalence, ensuring that, so far as money can do it, the landholders are placed in the same position as if the mining leases were not granted.[5] Care must also be taken to ensure that there is no “doubling up” of compensation. This Court is a specialised Court and will apply its own expertise in order to assist it to perform its function.

   [5]Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26, 43 per Jacobs J.

5. The Court, under s 281(3) of the MRA, “shall settle the amount of compensation” that the landowner is entitled to. It must set a monetary figure which is certain.

Determination of compensation

1. The land is used for cattle grazing and breeding but no evidence has been provided of the amount of lost income due to the mining lease. In view of what is known from the file and has been referred to above, compensation is determined in the sum of $200 per annum in the case of ML 2492 and $400 per annum in the case of ML 2784. These per annum figures are for the period of the lease in each case. The compensation is payable within 30 days of the grant of the renewal of the respective lease and in each subsequent year for the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of grant of its renewal.

Orders

1.     Compensation for ML 2492 is determined in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per annum.

2.     Compensation for ML 2784 is determined in the amount of Four Hundred Dollars ($400) per annum.

2.     The compensation is payable by the applicant to the respondent within 30 days of the grant of renewal of the respective lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the grant of its renewal.

WA ISDALE

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT