Opal Minded Pty Ltd v Pidgeon

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Opal Minded Pty Ltd v Pidgeon [2018] QLC 7

PARTIES:

Opal Minded Pty Ltd
(applicant)

v

Kerri Pidgeon
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA123-17

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON:

­5 April 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 26 February 2018. Allocated for hearing on 20 March, 2018.

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

MEMBER:

WA Isdale

ORDER:

1.     In respect of ML 95230 compensation is determined in the sum of $1,920 per annum.

2.     Compensation is to be paid yearly in advance with the first payment made within three months of the date of the issue of the renewal of ML 95230 by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and thereafter on the anniversary of the date of that issue.

CATCHWORDS:

Mining lease – Referral – Renewal – Determination of compensation – where both parties make disparate claims – Where there is an absence of evidence – Where the Court must do the best it can with the material the parties provided.

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279, s 281

Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) (1998) 19 QLCR 297, applied

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

Background

1. The applicant must have an arrangement to pay the respondent compensation so that it can continue to mine for opals on the respondent’s land. The applicant has a mining lease, ML 95230 and the parties have attempted, unsuccessfully, to agree on compensation for the respondent.

1. As they have been unable to resolve this, it now falls to the Court to do so.

The lease

1. The renewal of the lease is sought for ten years, the referral form 5 prepared by the senior mining registrar shows that the estimate is that 46.53 ha of the tenure area will affect the respondent’s property and approximately 6.31 ha of road reserve traverses   the tenure.

1. The property is suitable for low-intensity grazing when sufficient feed is available. The lease is in the Winton Mining District. When the Land and Resources Tribunal considered this lease in 2007,[1] the former Mining Warden, Mr Windridge, rounded the area to 53 ha for the purposes of his consideration.[2] He noted that the only other viable use of the land, apart from opal mining, was low intensity grazing if pasture is available.[3]

   [1]Opal minded Pty Ltd v Pidgeon [2007] QLRT 66.

   [2]Ibid [2].

   [3]Ibid [12].

Submissions

1. The parties have, pursuant to this Court’s order, made written submissions to the Court and provided them to each other. It is therefore unnecessary to set them all out. It is sufficient to observe that the respondent would like much more then applicant has offered.

The compensation

1. Section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act sets out the matters which the Court must consider when determining compensation.

1. The Act does not prescribe a method of valuation. Member Scott has said:

“It is beyond question as I have written above that the primary source of law is the statute under consideration…