McKeon v Jersey Plains Pastoral Company
[2014] QLC 45
•9 December 2014
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: McKeon v Jersey Plains Pastoral Company [2014] QLC 45 PARTIES: Michael Joseph McKeon
(applicant)v Jersey Plains Pastoral Company
(respondent)FILE NO: MRA612-13
MRA613-13DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining leases DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 23 October 2014 HEARD AT: Heard on the Papers MEMBER: WA Isdale ORDERS: 1. For ML 7571 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100).
2. For ML 7572 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100).
3. The applicant must pay the compensation to the respondent within one month of the renewal of each mining lease.
CATCHWORDS: Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 281MINING LEASES – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – lack of material from parties
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 64APPEARANCES: Not applicable
Background
The applicant Michael Joseph McKeon (the miner) holds Mining Leases (ML) 7571, Court file MRA612-13, and 7572, Court file MRA613-13. These are for surface areas of 3 ha each. They are located approximately 29 km south-west of Cloncurry and are in respect of silver ore, gold and copper ore. The leases expired on 30 June 2013 and renewals for seven year terms were sought. The land is pastoral.
On 14 October 2013 the matter of compensation was referred to the Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The Court has the benefit of the material provided to it by the Mining Registrar.
In the absence of the parties having finalised and lodged a compensation agreement with the Mining Registrar the Court must determine compensation from the available evidence. This includes compensation for access to the land.
Principles of compensation
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.
The issues which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s 281(3) and (4) of the MRA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The facts
In the present cases, the parties have arrived at a signed Compensation Agreement. It is dated 11 June 2014 and signed by Michael McKeon as miner and David Corbett as owner. Both signatures are witnessed. The agreement shows $100 compensation for access to ML 7571 and $100 compensation for access to ML 7572.
This document was provided to the Court on 11 June 2014 by e-mail. Although the Court wrote to the miner and the respondent on 31 October 2013 requiring them to provide material in accordance with Practice Direction 5 of 2013 namely, a compensation statement, any supporting affidavits or statutory declarations and a hearing statement, nothing except the Compensation Agreement has been received. That process was to have been completed by 27 December 2013.
The files indicate that the Compensation Agreement is not in a form which the Mining Registrar will accept so it is necessary for the Court to proceed to determine compensation.
On 2 October 2014 the Court wrote to the parties advising that under Rule 36A of the Land Court Rules 2000 these matters would be decided without an oral hearing unless the Court received an objection in writing, with reasons, by 4.00pm on 23 October 2014. The parties were also advised that any further material or submissions in relation to compensation should be provided to the Court and to the other party by that time. The Court has received no response to this letter from either party.
The parties have chosen to provide very little material for the Court to consider in deciding the matter of compensation for these leases, despite the Court’s repeated directions in writing. Accordingly, the decisions will have to be made by the Court on the material available as it has a duty under the MRA to determine the compensation.
Determination of compensation
The signed agreement is expressed to be an “agreement as to compensation in compliance with Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989”. Section 281 of the MRA sets out the aspects of compensation to which the Land Court will have regard. This includes, but is not limited to, surface rights of access. The agreement, while only specifically referring to access, does state that it is an agreement as to compensation. In the absence of any submissions to the contrary, the fact that it has been signed indicates that it is an agreement as to compensation which the parties regard as a complete one, although it sets amounts for access only. No other aspects of compensation are expressed to be in issue and no other material or submissions have been supplied.
With the evidence of the Compensation Agreement, the Court determines the compensation in the amounts agreed. The Compensation Agreement provides for an amount of $100 as the total sum of the compensation for each lease.
As the sums involved are not large, the Court orders the miner to pay the total compensation of $100 for each lease to the respondent within one month of the renewal of each mining lease.
Orders
1. For ML 7571 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100).
2. For ML 7572 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100).
3. The applicant must pay the compensation to the respondent within one month of the renewal of each mining lease.
WA ISDALE
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
2