Nielsen v Australian Wildlife Conservancy

The case of Nielsen v Australian Wildlife Conservancy involves an application for the determination of compensation for the effect on the respondent landowner due to the renewal of the applicants’ Mining Lease 5049 in the Mareeba District. The applicants are Leslie James Nielsen, Christian Henry Nielsen, Marlene Mary Bramley, Eileen Kerns, and Geoffrey Francis Phillips as executor of the Estate of Keith Wade Phillips. The respondent is the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. The application was made under section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) and was heard on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate compensation for the respondent landowner for the effect of the mining lease renewal. The respondent referred to a previous decision, Oosen v Australian Wildlife Conservancy, which had set compensation levels that the respondent was agreeable to accept. The applicants proposed a compensation amount between $5 and $10 per hectare per annum. The court needed to assess whether the compensation levels previously determined were appropriate for the current renewal and to decide on the specific compensation amount to be paid.

The court, Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar, reviewed the previous decision and the material presented by the applicants. The court was satisfied that the compensation levels previously determined in the Oosen case were appropriate for the present renewal. The compensation was calculated at $10 per hectare per annum, plus an additional $10 for access, and a further 10% pursuant to section 281(4)(e) of the MRA. The total compensation determined was $175, which the miner was required to pay within 60 days of the notification of lease renewal by the Registrar.

The court ordered that the compensation of $175 be paid by the miner to the landowner within 60 days of the renewal of the mining lease.