Queensland Coal P/L v Shaw - [2001] QCA 463

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Queensland Coal P/L & Anor v Shaw & Anor [2001] QCA 463

PARTIES: QUEENSLAND COAL PTY LTD ACN 000 003 921
MITSUI KESTREL COAL INVESTMENT PTY LTD ACN 002 429 763
(applicants/respondents)
v
MICHAEL DAVID SHAW
MARGARET ELEANOR SHAW
(respondents/appellants)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3407 of 2001
LXX40070 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:
Land & Resources Tribunal at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 26 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 11 October 2001

JUDGES: Davies and Thomas JJA, Cullinane J
Separate reasons for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:
1. The appeal is allowed with costs

2. The order of the Tribunal striking out paragraph 9 and subparagraphs 9.1 to 9.17 of the objection is set aside

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LAW – MINING LEASES – APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA – OBJECTION – where the respondent companies had made an application for additional surface area over part of the appellants’ land – where the appellants objected on the ground that the respondents had not been granted a valid original mining lease – where the original lease did not contain a term as to depth restriction contrary to the requirement in s 114 of the Mining Act 1968 – whether the absence of this term invalidated the grant of the lease – whether the tribunal erred in implying such a term into the lease and upholding the application to strike out the appellants’ objection to the validity of the lease

MINING LAW – MINING LEASES – MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – whether the original lease had ever been effectively granted – where there was no evidence of any Order-in-Council ever having been made granting the lease – where both parties nevertheless proceeded on the basis there was a lease granted – where s 114 provides an important source of protection for landowners – where specification of mining depth an essential requirement of a mining lease – where a formal and sufficient identification of the land the subject of a mining lease is a basic requirement under the legislation – where inconsistent with legislative scheme to say that the description of the land in a mining lease may be varied by implication – lease a nullity insofar as it purports to grant rights over appellants’ land

Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (Qld), s 67
Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 216, s 275, s 297 Mineral Resources Act 1968 (Qld) (Repealed), s 7, s 21, s 21(1), s 33, s 34, s 44, s 108, s 114, s 126, s 128
Mining Regulations 1979 (Qld) (Repealed), reg 36

Lord v Commissioners for the City of Sydney (1859) 12 Moo PC 473; 14 ER 991, distinguished
Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, considered
Roach v Bickle (1915) 20 CLR 663, referred to

COUNSEL: P J Lyons QC for the appellants

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Queensland Coal P/L v Shaw and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QCA 463
Decision Date: 26 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Coal P/L filed an appeal against a decision of the Mining Lease Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellants' objection to an application for additional surface area by the respondent companies over part of the appellants' land. The appellants had objected to the respondents' application on the basis that the respondents had not been granted a valid original mining lease. Specifically, the appellants argued that the original lease did not contain a term as to depth restriction, contrary to the requirement in section 114 of the Mining Act 1968. The appellants contended that the absence of this term invalidated the grant of the lease, and that the Tribunal had erred in implying such a term into the lease and upholding the application to strike out the appellants' objection to the validity of the lease.

The legal issues before the court were whether the absence of the depth restriction term in the original lease invalidated the grant of the lease, and whether the Tribunal had erred in implying such a term into the lease and striking out the appellants' objection to the validity of the lease. The court considered the legislative scheme and held that section 114 of the Mining Act 1968 required a formal and sufficient identification of the land subject to a mining lease, and that it was inconsistent with the legislative scheme to say that the description of the land in a mining lease may be varied by implication. The court held that the lease was a nullity insofar as it purported to grant rights over the appellants' land, and that the Tribunal had erred in upholding the application to strike out the appellants' objection to the validity of the lease.

The appeal was allowed with costs, and the order of the Tribunal striking out paragraph 9 and subparagraphs 9.1 to 9.17 of the objection was set aside. The decision highlights the importance of compliance with legislative requirements for the grant of mining leases and the need for clear and specific terms in mining leases to avoid uncertainty and potential disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed with costs

2. The order of the Tribunal striking out paragraph 9 and subparagraphs 9.1 to 9.17 of the objection is set aside

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:	Queensland Coal P/L & Anor v Shaw & Anor [2001] QCA 463
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND COAL PTY LTD ACN 000 003 921 MITSUI KESTREL COAL INVESTMENT PTY LTD ACN 002 429 763 (applicants/respondents) v MICHAEL DAVID SHAW MARGARET ELEANOR SHAW (respondents/appellants)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3407 of 2001 LXX40070 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Land & Resources Tribunal at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 October 2001
JUDGES:	Davies and Thomas JJA, Cullinane J Separate reasons for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. The appeal is allowed with costs 2. The order of the Tribunal striking out paragraph 9 and subparagraphs 9.1 to 9.17 of the objection is set aside
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LAW – MINING LEASES – APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA – OBJECTION – where the respondent companies had made an application for additional surface area over part of the appellants’ land – where the appellants objected on the ground that the respondents had not been granted a valid original mining lease – where the original lease did not contain a term as to depth restriction contrary to the requirement in s 114 of the Mining Act 1968 – whether the absence of this term invalidated the grant of the lease – whether the tribunal erred in implying such a term into the lease and upholding the application to strike out the appellants’ objection to the validity of the lease MINING LAW – MINING LEASES – MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY – QUEENSLAND – OTHER MATTERS – whether the original lease had ever been effectively granted – where there was no evidence of any Order-in-Council ever having been made granting the lease – where both parties nevertheless proceeded on the basis there was a lease granted – where s 114 provides an important source of protection for landowners – where specification of mining depth an essential requirement of a mining lease – where a formal and sufficient identification of the land the subject of a mining lease is a basic requirement under the legislation – where inconsistent with legislative scheme to say that the description of the land in a mining lease may be varied by implication – lease a nullity insofar as it purports to grant rights over appellants’ land Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (Qld), s 67 Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 216, s 275, s 297 Mineral Resources Act 1968 (Qld) (Repealed), s 7, s 21, s 21(1), s 33, s 34, s 44, s 108, s 114, s 126, s 128 Mining Regulations 1979 (Qld) (Repealed), reg 36 Lord v Commissioners for the City of Sydney (1859) 12 Moo PC 473; 14 ER 991, distinguished Project Blue Sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, considered Roach v Bickle (1915) 20 CLR 663, referred to
COUNSEL:	P J Lyons QC for the appellants