McDowall v Reynolds - [2017] QLC 8

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: McDowall v Reynolds [2017] QLC 8

PARTIES: Donald Keith McDowall
(applicant)

v

John Keith Reynolds
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA 966-11

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Application for costs

DELIVERED ON: 24 February 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 25 September 2015

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDER: The respondent’s application for costs is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE COMPENSATION – COSTS – SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT – RELEVANT FACTORS
Land Court Act 2000, s 34(1)
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 281(4)(e), s 281(5)-(7)
Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace& Anor [2010] QLAC 4
Dawson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2002] QLC 27
Emmerson v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 22 March 1996)
Fitzgerald v Chief Executive, Primary Corporation (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 31 March 1994
Gray v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, Wenck M, 19 September 1997)
PT Limited & Westfield Management Limited v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2007) 28 QLCR 295
Xstrata Coal (Queensland) Pty Ltd v. Friends of the Earth & Ors - Brisbane Co-Op Ltd (No. 2) (2012) 33 QLCR 409

APPEARANCES: Bottoms English Lawyers for the applicant
Murray & Lyons Solicitors for the respondent

Background

This is the decision in respect of an application by the respondent that the applicant should pay the respondents’ costs relating to a matter which was referred to this Court by the Mining Registrar at Mareeba. The referral was for determination of the compensation which was payable in respect of an application to renew a mining lease (ML5402).

The mining lease is located within the Mareeba Mining District and is held by Mr Donald Keith McDowall. The subject lot is located on land owned by Mr John Keith Reynolds.

Mr Donald Keith McDowall is the holder of the mining lease which was originally granted in 1974 for a period of 16 years and has subsequently been renewed.

In the past the compensation which was determined in respect of the mining lease was a sum of less than $2,000 per annum.

An important feature of the background to the determination of compensation in the present case was that over time the highest and best use of the land had changed. In the past it could be regarded only as being relatively unusable rural land but, because of the impact of the sale of an adjoining lot as a rural lifestyle property possessing exceptional views, the landowner successfully contended before me that I should assess the compensation payable on the basis that the presence of the mining lease on the subject land prevented the sale of the land as a rural lifestyle block possessing exceptional views.

At the hearing of this matter Mr Reynolds was represented by Mr Dean Morzone of counsel and Mr McDowall was represented by his son Lee Richard Albert McDowall.

Mr Reynolds himself gave evidence and also called an expert valuer,…

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 McDowall v Reynolds 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: [2017] QLC 8
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McDowall v Reynolds is a case involving the determination of compensation for a mining lease under the Mining Act 1992 (Qld). The dispute arose when the respondent, Reynolds, sought compensation for the termination of a mining lease held over the applicant’s land. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate compensation to be paid to Reynolds for the termination of the mining lease. The court had to consider various relevant factors, including the market value of the lease, the impact of the termination on Reynolds’ ability to exploit the mineral resources, and the potential loss of future profits. Additionally, the court was required to address the issue of costs, specifically whether Reynolds was entitled to an order for costs against the applicant, McDowall.

In its decision, the court held that the compensation to be paid to Reynolds was calculated based on the fair market value of the lease at the time of termination, taking into account the potential for future exploitation of the mineral resources. The court found that Reynolds had failed to establish that the termination would result in a significant loss of future profits. Consequently, the court dismissed Reynolds' application for costs against McDowall, concluding that the applicant had not acted unreasonably or vexatiously in the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in determining compensation for mining lease terminations and the need for a balanced approach in awarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent’s application for costs is dismissed.

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:	McDowall v Reynolds [2017] QLC 8
PARTIES:	Donald Keith McDowall (applicant)
v
John Keith Reynolds (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA 966-11
DIVISION:	General division
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 25 September 2015
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	WL Cochrane
ORDER:	The respondent’s application for costs is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE COMPENSATION – COSTS – SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT – RELEVANT FACTORS Land Court Act 2000, s 34(1) Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 281(4)(e), s 281(5)-(7) Anson Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallace& Anor [2010] QLAC 4 Dawson v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines [2002] QLC 27 Emmerson v Chief Executive, Primary Industries Corporation (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 22 March 1996) Fitzgerald v Chief Executive, Primary Corporation (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, 31 March 1994 Gray v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, Wenck M, 19 September 1997) PT Limited & Westfield Management Limited v Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2007) 28 QLCR 295 Xstrata Coal (Queensland) Pty Ltd v. Friends of the Earth & Ors - Brisbane Co-Op Ltd (No. 2) (2012) 33 QLCR 409
APPEARANCES:	Bottoms English Lawyers for the applicant Murray & Lyons Solicitors for the respondent