Osborne v Bethel - [2022] QLC 17

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Osborne v Bethel [2022] QLC 17

PARTIES:
Rosslyn Osborne
(applicant)

v

Kristy-Leigh and Willi James Bethel
(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA033-22

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 31 October 2022

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 30 September 2022

HEARD AT: On the papers

MEMBER: JR McNamara

ORDERS:
In respect of the application for renewal of ML 3589, compensation is determined as follows:

1.   Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars and Seventy Cents ($2,696.70) per annum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($2,670 plus 10%);

2.   Two Hundred and Fifty-Three Dollars and Twenty Cents ($253.20) per annum in biosecurity inspection costs, indexed annually to CPI ($230.18 plus 10%); and

3.   The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1 and 2 to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources, and then annually on the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for the renewal of a mining lease situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281

Guernier and Anor v Chelsea on the Park [2021] QLC 13, distinguished

Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd [2022] QLC 10, cited
Kelly v Chelsea on the Park [2020] QLC 36, distinguished
Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7, cited

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

[1]The towns of Georgetown and Forsayth are in the heart of the Etheridge Shire in north Queensland. Gold rushes began in this region around 1870 and transitioned through periods where it flourished and where it slumped due to market conditions or the attraction of other mining fields. Today the region’s pastoral and mining industry and history is an attraction for outback tourism.

[2]The Osborne family (applicant Rosslyn Osborne) first pegged what became Mining Lease 3589 (the ML) in 1989. The ML was granted in 1991 and has been renewed a number of times. Rosslyn Osborne has applied for a 10 year renewal. The ML is located just north of Forsayth and about 30km south of Georgetown, on Jenkins Creek Station, a pastoral property owned by Kristy-Leigh and Willi Bethel (the Bethels).

[3]Before the renewal can be granted Rosslyn Osborne must agree compensation with the Bethels, or if not agreed, compensation must be determined by the Land Court on the basis of the statutory criteria in the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA).[1] Despite the exchange of compensation offers there was no agreement. This gives the Land Court jurisdiction and for the reasons that follow I have determined compensation is payable by Rosslyn Osborne only for the diminished use…

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 Osborne v Bethel

Details

AGLC: Osborne v Bethel [2022] QLC 17
Case: [2022] QLC 17
Decision Date: 31 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Osborne v Bethel was before the court, where the applicant, Osborne, sought the renewal of a mining lease on land belonging to the respondent, Bethel. The crux of the dispute lay in determining whether compensation was payable to Bethel under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and, if so, the amount of such compensation. The primary legal issues centred on the interpretation of the statute, specifically the provisions of section 281, and the application of those provisions to the facts of the case.

The court was required to assess whether the statutory compensation was payable to Bethel and, if so, to calculate the appropriate amount. The analysis involved determining the diminution in the use of the land as well as the costs associated with biosecurity inspections. The court examined the legislative framework, previous case law, and the particular circumstances of the lease and land in question. The statutory provisions were interpreted to mandate compensation for the diminution of the land's use and additional costs related to biosecurity inspections.

After thorough consideration of the statutory language and relevant precedents, the court determined the compensation payable. The court set the annual compensation at $2,696.70 for the diminution of land use and $253.20 for biosecurity inspection costs, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index. The applicant was directed to pay these amounts to the respondent within one month of the renewal of the mining lease and annually thereafter on the renewal date. This ruling provided a clear framework for the compensation payable under the circumstances described.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of the application for renewal of ML 3589, compensation is determined as follows:

1. Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars and Seventy Cents ($2,696.70) per annum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($2,670 plus 10%);

2. Two Hundred and Fifty-Three Dollars and Twenty Cents ($253.20) per annum in biosecurity inspection costs, indexed annually to CPI ($230.18 plus 10%); and

3. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1 and 2 to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources, and then annually on the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources.

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:	Osborne v Bethel [2022] QLC 17
PARTIES:	Rosslyn Osborne (applicant) v Kristy-Leigh and Willi James Bethel (respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA033-22
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	31 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 30 September 2022
HEARD AT:	On the papers
MEMBER:	JR McNamara
ORDERS:	In respect of the application for renewal of ML 3589, compensation is determined as follows: 1. Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars and Seventy Cents ($2,696.70) per annum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land ($2,670 plus 10%); 2. Two Hundred and Fifty-Three Dollars and Twenty Cents ($253.20) per annum in biosecurity inspection costs, indexed annually to CPI ($230.18 plus 10%); and 3. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1 and 2 to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources, and then annually on the date of the grant of the renewal of ML 3589 by the Department of Resources.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for the renewal of a mining lease situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281 Guernier and Anor v Chelsea on the Park [2021] QLC 13, distinguished Hoffman v Blue Bay Tas Pty Ltd [2022] QLC 10, cited Kelly v Chelsea on the Park [2020] QLC 36, distinguished Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7, cited
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable