Mintram v Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd - [2010] QLC 133

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Mintram & Anor v Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd [2010] QLC 0133

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Leases No 30077 and 30078 – Application for damages claimed by Lance William Mintram and Joan Edna Mintram from Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd
FILE NO:MRA570-09
PROCEEDING:  Application for damages
DELIVERED ON:  16 September 2010 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:                   Mareeba
MEMBER:Mr PA Smith
ORDERS:1.    The respondent pay to the applicants forthwith the sum of $9,000 with respect to the loss of breeding cows together with interest in the sum of $3,408 and indemnity costs fixed in the sum of $1,000 making a total of $13,408.
CATCHWORDS:                  MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES – Escape of cyanide from mining leases – death of landholder’s breeding stock – duty of mine operator to landholder – long outstanding issue – no appearance by mining company – no compliance by mining company with Court orders – interest on damages – indemnity costs
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s.363

APPEARANCES: Mr and Mrs Mintram in person

No appearance by Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd

Background
[1]I have before me an application brought by Mr and Mrs Mintram pursuant to s.363 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the MRA) seeking the recovery of costs incurred arising from the death of fifteen head of breeding cows on their property in 2004. There has been no appearance today by the respondent to these proceedings, Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd.
[2]Endeavour Mining are the holders of two mining leases on the Mintram’s property, being Mining Leases 30077 and 30078. In addition to the respondent not appearing at the proceedings today, the respondent failed to provide the Court with any material in accordance with an order of the Court of 16 July 2010 by which the respondent was to file and serve its written statement of evidence and/or written submissions by 4:00pm on Friday 3 September 2010.
[3]I note that the applicants simply relied upon the material contained within their application together with material referred to in the compensation hearing with respect to the renewal of the two mining leases heard before me in November 2009. It is worth noting that the landholders sought the determination of compensation with respect to the loss of cattle as part of the renewal process, but for reasons of operation of the MRA, I was unable to accommodate that request as part of the renewal compensation process which necessitated the Mintrams bringing this new application to the Court.
[4]It is further a matter of record that the respondent miner has been aware of the loss suffered by the landholders since 2004 and that remedial action has been undertaken on the mining lease areas with respect to rectification of a failed tailings dam but that no compensation has been paid to Mr and Mrs Mintram with respect to their losses of fifteen head of breeding cows. That loss arose directly as a consequence of the failure of the tailings dam which resulted in cyanide travelling to…

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 Mintram v Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mintram v Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd [2010] QLC 133
Case: [2010] QLC 133
Decision Date: 16 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Land Court of Queensland presided over a case involving Lance William Mintram and Joan Edna Mintram, who sought damages from Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd due to the death of their breeding cows caused by the escape of cyanide from mining leases. The court was required to decide on the compensation to be awarded to the applicants for the loss of their breeding cows, interest on the damages, and indemnity costs. Endeavour Mining Pty Ltd, the respondent, did not appear in court and failed to comply with court orders, which exacerbated the situation. The court found that the mining company's failure to compensate the landholders for the losses they suffered due to the cyanide spill was unacceptable.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on the applicants' evidence and the fact that the mining company had been aware of the loss since 2004. The court awarded the applicants $9,000 for the loss of their breeding cows, interest of $3,408, and indemnity costs of $1,000, making a total of $13,408. The court emphasised that miners have obligations under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994, and their failure to comply with these obligations must not be tolerated. The court expected miners to operate in a manner that ensured timely resolution of issues when spills of toxic materials like cyanide caused direct losses to landholders.

In conclusion, the court made the following orders: 1) The respondent pay to the applicants forthwith the sum of $9,000 with respect to the loss of breeding cows together with interest in the sum of $3,408 and indemnity costs fixed in the sum of $1,000 making a total of $13,408.

Orders