Palmer v Appleton

[2014] QLC 5

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Palmer v Appleton & Anor  [2014] QLC 5

PARTIES:

Yvonne Christine Palmer

(applicant)

v.

Victor JE Appleton and Janet A Appleton

(respondents)

FILE NO:

MRA643-13

DIVISION:

Land Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Application for determination of compensation

DELIVERED ON:

6 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT:

On the papers

MEMBER:

Mr BR O'Connor – Judicial Registrar

ORDER:

1.    Compensation is determined in the amount of Three Hundred and Forty Dollars ($340) per annum.

2.    The applicant is to pay compensation of Three Hundred and Forty Dollars ($340) yearly in advance, with the first payment due within two months from notification of renewal of the mining leases and mining claim by the Mining Registrar. 

CATCHWORDS:

Renewal of mining leases – determination of compensation – Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss.279 and 281.

1. Mrs Palmer has applied to the Mining Registrar, Emerald Mining District for the renewal of the ML 70102.

2. Section 279(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 requires that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless compensation has been determined. 

3. Compensation was not settled between the parties within three months after the term ended.  Accordingly, the Mining Registrar referred the issue of compensation to this Court for determination. 

4. It should be noted at the outset that the current decision relates only to ML 70102 comprising an area of one hectare only (rounded) and does not include ML 7294.  The latter, although associated with ML 70102, does not expire until 2015 and is not included in the current proceedings.  Certain of the written submissions by the parties assumed that the compensation for the two was now to be determined. 

5. Much of the content of the parties written submissions related to alleged improper conduct by the applicant or the predecessors in the operation of the mining lease.  It is not necessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of such claims although I note that the applicant strongly denies the validity of the claims, at least from when she took over the lease.  Breach of such conditions is a matter for consideration and action by the supervising authorities, the Mining Registrar or Environmental Protection Authority officers. 

6. The subject ML 70102 is located on "Miclere", a cattle grazing property located north of Clermont and owned by Mr and Mrs Appleton, the respondents.  In written submissions, reference has been made to the mining lease Court decisions on two other leases over the same property.  These decisions are Starr v Appleton & Anor [2008] QLC 0122 and Slater v Appleton & Anor [2012] QLC 0007.

7. I have perused these decisions in detail and adopted certain observations and findings made in them.  I note that, unlike the present case which is heard on the papers following the written submissions by the parties, the above two decisions were conducted with full oral hearing at Clermont.  An inspection of the lease and surrounds was conducted in both cases by the Court.

Parties Submissions

Applicant

1. The applicant's submissions are based on applicable agistment rates in the district with an estimate of $156 per annum nominated.  I note this relates to some six hectares including ML 7294 – whereas the current case before the Court relates only to ML 70102 containing an area of one hectare (rounded).

Respondents

1. The respondents submit an amount of $57 per annum solely for ML 70102 based on a rate accepted in the Slater decision.  To this, the respondents add an amount of $700 per annum disturbance to cover items such as loss of productivity, damage and general degradation of the property through rubbish accumulation, uncontrolled release of mine water, numerous uncontrolled dogs roaming the property disturbing cattle and wildlife and extra-management time. 

2. The respondents claim this disturbance rate is similar to that agreed with other leaseholders. 

3. Added to this amount is a figure to reflect the compulsory nature of the acquisition under s 281(4)(e), that is 10%.

Observations

1. In determining the compensation in the present case, the assumption is that the mining lease is being operated in a lawful manner in accordance with lease conditions.

2. It is also assumed that the lease will be properly rehabilitated in accordance with the lease and environmental authority conditions as far as it is able to be so done.  I note that in the Starr decision the Court observed some additional allowance could be made to the extent that rehabilitation probably could not be effected to restore the lease as to its condition prior to the initial grant. 

Assessment of Compensation

1. I am prepared to accept the figure of $57 per hectare submitted by the respondents based on the figure in the 2012 Slater decision on the same property.  As noted earlier, the total figure of $156 per annum submitted by the applicant relates to a combined area of six hectares, not the single lease now before the Court.

2. As regards the additional figure of $700 per annum submitted by the respondents for disturbance, many of the things nominated there relate to improper action which could result in breach of lease conditions.  Also, there is no evidence as to how this figure was agreed with in settlements with other mining leases on the property.

3. I note in the Starr decision the Court considered a claim in the amount of $655 to be too high (there relating to about six hectares).  Allowing a further small amount for the owner's time in supervising lease conduct as observed in Starr, I consider an appropriate amount in the current case for disturbance is $250 per annum.  To these amounts are added a 10% allowance as required under s 283(4)(e).  The final figure amounts to $337.70 to $340 per annum (rounded).

ORDERS

1.Compensation is determined in the amount of Three Hundred and Forty Dollars per annum.

2.The applicant is to pay compensation of Three Hundred and Forty Dollars ($340) yearly in advance, with the first payment due within two months from notification of renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. 

BR O'CONNOR

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR