Pryce v Struber - [2013] QLC 32

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Pryce v Struber and Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [2013] QLC 32

PARTIES:
Malcolm Scott Pryce

(applicant)

v

Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson Struber
(respondents)

and

Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
(statutory party)

FILE NOS: MRA287-12, EPA288-12 and MRA336-12

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING:
Hearing for Application for Mining Lease and Objections to its Grant.

Objections to draft Environmental Authority.

Determination of Compensation on Grant of Mining Lease.

DELIVERED ON: 7 June 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD AT: Mareeba

MEMBER:: His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane

ORDER:
1.   I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Mining Lease ML 20682 be granted over the application area.

2.   I recommend, pursuant to Environmental Protection Act 1994, to the Honourable the Minister administering the Environmental Protection Act that the Environmental Authority be issued in terms of the draft Environmental Authority issued on 9 September 2011 without amendment.

3.   The miner Malcolm Scott Pryce pay compensation in the sum of One Hundred and Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($107.50) per annum, such sum to be paid to the landowners within two months of the notification of the Grant of the Mining Lease by the Mining Registrar and thereafter annually in advance on the anniversary of the notification.

CATCHWORDS: Mining – Mining Lease – Recommendation – Objections – Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 238, 252, 269, and 422
Environment – draft Environmental Authority – objections – Environmental Protection Act 1994 – ss 219, 220, 222, 223

APPEARANCES: Mr Pryce in person.
No appearance by Mr S Struber or Mrs D Wilson Struber.
Statutory Party excused from appearing.

These decisions relate to an application made by Malcolm Scott Pryce for a mining lease (ML 20682) on a property located in Far North Queensland the lease of which is owned by Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson Struber.
The matter which became files number MRA287-12 and EPA288-12 was referred by the Mining Registrar on 4 July 2012 for the Court to consider, pursuant to s 265 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the objections to the grant of the mining lease and the objections to the amendment of the Environmental Authority (Mining Lease or Mining Claim).
The matter which became MRA 336-12 was a referral by the Mining Registrar for the Mareeba District of the matter of the determination of the appropriate compensation to be paid pursuant to s 279(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.
The Struber property is otherwise known as Palmerville Station and is used for low intensity grazing purposes.
Its formal description is Lot 14 on SP 208316. According to other documentation before the Court the description of Palmerville Station may have been amended from Lot 14 on SP 205316 to Lot 14 on SP 250040. I propose to use the formal description contained within the application at the time it was made but acknowledge that once the mining lease comes to be registered it will be in respect…

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 Pryce v Struber

Details

AGLC: Pryce v Struber [2013] QLC 32
Case: [2013] QLC 32
Decision Date: 7 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pryce v Struber involved a dispute over a mining lease and an application for an environmental authority. The applicant, Malcolm Scott Pryce, sought to grant a mining lease over certain land and to obtain an environmental authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) and the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The respondents, Mr and Mrs Struber, lodged objections to both the mining lease and the environmental authority. The case was heard in the Land Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the objections raised by the Strubers were valid and whether the Land Court had the authority to go beyond the objections in making its recommendations to the Minister. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 220, 222, and 223 of the EPA, and sections 268 and 269 of the MRA, to determine the scope of its powers in making its recommendations.

The court found that the objections raised by the Strubers were valid and that the Land Court was required to consider those objections in making its recommendations. The court held that it did not have the authority to go beyond the objections in making its recommendations and that it must consider only the matters set out in the objections and the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the objections did not provide sufficient grounds to refuse the mining lease or the environmental authority. The court made recommendations to the Minister to grant the mining lease and to issue the environmental authority in terms of the draft authority without amendment. The court also ordered that compensation be paid to the Strubers.

The final orders of the court were that the Land Court recommended to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Mining Lease ML 20682 be granted over the application area and recommended, pursuant to the EPA, to the Minister administering the EPA that the Environmental Authority be issued in terms of the draft Environmental Authority issued on 9 September 2011 without amendment. The court also ordered that the miner Malcolm Scott Pryce pay compensation in the sum of One Hundred and Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($107.50) per annum to the landowners within two months of the notification of the Grant of the Mining Lease by the Mining Registrar and thereafter annually in advance on the anniversary of the notification.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Mining Lease ML 20682 be granted over the application area.

2. I recommend, pursuant to Environmental Protection Act 1994, to the Honourable the Minister administering the Environmental Protection Act that the Environmental Authority be issued in terms of the draft Environmental Authority issued on 9 September 2011 without amendment.

3. The miner Malcolm Scott Pryce pay compensation in the sum of One Hundred and Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($107.50) per annum, such sum to be paid to the landowners within two months of the notification of the Grant of the Mining Lease by the Mining Registrar and thereafter annually in advance on the anniversary of the notification.

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

So far as the consideration of the objection to the Environmental Authority is concerned s 220 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA)[1] as in force at September 2012 provides as follows:“220 Objections decision hearing(1) The Land Court may, of its own initiative, make orders or directions it considers appropriate for a hearing for the objections decision (the objections decision hearing).(2) The orders or directions must, as much as practicable, ensure the objections decision hearing happens as closely as possible to hearings under the Mineral Resources Act for each relevant mining tenement.”[1] Now s 188 – see Environmental Protection Act 1994 as in force 3 May 2013. In the present case the objection to the Mining Lease and the objection to the Application for an Environmental Authority are to be heard and determined together. Section 222 of the EPA[2] identifies the nature of the decision which I am entitled to make in respect of the Environmental Authority namely that:[2] Now s 190 – see Environmental Protection Act 1994 as in force 3 May 2013.“…(a) the application be granted on the basis of the draft environmental authority for the application; or(b)the application be granted, but on stated conditions that are different to the conditions in the draft; or(c)the application be refused.” Section 223 of the EPA[3] identifies the matters to be considered for the objections decision and specifically provides that I must consider the following:(a) The application documents for the application.(b) Any relevant regulatory requirement.(c) The standard criteria.(d)To the extent the application relates to mining activities in a wild river area – the wild river declaration for the area.(e)Each current objection.(f)Any suitability report obtained for the application.(g)The status of any application under the Mineral Resources Act for each relevant mining tenement.[3] Now s 191 – see Environmental Protection Act 1994 as in force 3 May 2013. With respect to my obligation in the context of the objection to the grant of the Mining Lease s 268(3) of the MRA provides:“(3)The Land Court shall not entertain an objection to an application or any ground thereof or any evidence in relation to any ground if the objection or ground is not contained in an objection that has been duly lodged in respect of the application.” The Acts (MRA and EPA) do not contain any provisions which entitle me to go beyond the ambit of the relevant objections. Section 269(4) of the MRA provides that the Land Court in making a recommendation to the Minister that an application for a mining lease shall be granted either in whole or in part, must take into account and consider a number of specified matters. Each of the matters required to be considered pursuant to s 269(4) of the MRA are discussed below. In considering each of those matters I have, of course, had regard to the material filed by Mr Pryce and it should be noted there was no material filed by Mr and Mrs Struber which dealt at all with any of the matters set out in s 269 of the MRA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Pryce v Struber and Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [2013] QLC 32
PARTIES:	Malcolm Scott Pryce (applicant)
v
Stephen Struber and Dianne Wilson Struber (respondents) and Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (statutory party)
FILE NOS:	MRA287-12, EPA288-12 and MRA336-12
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing for Application for Mining Lease and Objections to its Grant. Objections to draft Environmental Authority. Determination of Compensation on Grant of Mining Lease.
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD AT:	Mareeba
MEMBER::	His Honour, Mr WL Cochrane
ORDER:	1. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Mining Lease ML 20682 be granted over the application area. 2. I recommend, pursuant to Environmental Protection Act 1994, to the Honourable the Minister administering the Environmental Protection Act that the Environmental Authority be issued in terms of the draft Environmental Authority issued on 9 September 2011 without amendment. 3. The miner Malcolm Scott Pryce pay compensation in the sum of One Hundred and Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($107.50) per annum, such sum to be paid to the landowners within two months of the notification of the Grant of the Mining Lease by the Mining Registrar and thereafter annually in advance on the anniversary of the notification.
CATCHWORDS:	Mining – Mining Lease – Recommendation – Objections – Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 238, 252, 269, and 422 Environment – draft Environmental Authority – objections – Environmental Protection Act 1994 – ss 219, 220, 222, 223
APPEARANCES:	Mr Pryce in person. No appearance by Mr S Struber or Mrs D Wilson Struber. Statutory Party excused from appearing.