Re Fitzgerald & Anor
[2009] QLC 15
•30 January 2009
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Fitzgerald & Anor [2009] QLC 0015
PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 20394 – Application by Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Dennis Bernard Fitzgerald for determination of compensation payable to NBT Pty Ltd
FILE NO:MLC00077/2008
PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON: 30 January 2009
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER/S:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $1,940.
2. I award an additional amount of $190 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $2,130; $1,065 within 3 months of notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar; the balance within 5 years of the date of issue of the mining grant. Payment is to be made to the landowner at the time payment is due.
4. No order for costs.
CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s.279, 281
S.P. White v Warner [2003] QLRT 40
Smith v Cameron [1986-87] 11 QLCR
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd [1992-93] 14 QLCR
APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the papers
Background
The applicants Kay Frances Fitzgerald and Dennis Bernard Fitzgerald (the miners) seek the grant of Mining Lease 20394 in the Mareeba District. The applicants seek a term of 21 years. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Mareeba on 30 June 2003.
The lease is located on Belleve which is more particularly described as Lot 4567 on PH 1696, Parish of Groganville, County of Chelmsford. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The lease is over an area of 17.67 ha and is sought for the purpose of mining for gold and silver and infrastructure requirements. For the purpose of this application I round off the area to 18 ha.
The Act
Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed at the office of the Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In this instance, no agreement has been lodged with the Registrar and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination.
The matters which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s.281(3) of the Act. Although s.281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. In Smith v Cameron (1986) 11 QLCR. 64, the Land Court held at p.74…”
“The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. No doubt each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances but it seems to me that either method is open to the valuer.”
In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, the Court at p.146 said:
“the method of assessment remains a matter which will be governed by the facts and circumstances of each case in which event emphasis may shift from one method to another.”
In considering Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported, the President of the Land Court, referring to s.281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act, found
“the latter section does not prescribe a method of assessment. In my view, as long as the amount of compensation finally determined sufficiently accounts for each of the matters referred to in the sub-section, it is not necessary to quantify an amount in respect of each of the matters referred to.”
The evidence
Neither party sought to appear before the Court and this matter has been dealt with on the papers. Neither party filed statements or other supporting material. Some documentation in relation to factual matters was provided by the Registrar. I have also drawn upon my personal observations and knowledge of the operation of similar mining in this district. In these reasons I refer to the salient points but not all the evidence that I relied upon in making my determination.
There was no formal valuation evidence to consider, therefore the Court does not have that assistance in arriving at a determination. Due to the small area involved, the cost of a valuation would far outweigh any award for compensation. Due to the small area involved, co-use or co-occupation would not be feasible, and the land owner has lost the use of the lease area of 18ha for the term of the lease.
Prior determinations and agreements for leases and claims in the Mareeba area range from about $5 per hectare per year to $15 per hectare per year.
In summary, there was no evidence called to support any claim under any other head of compensation, nor was any matter raised which would necessitate consideration under paragraphs (a), (c), (d), or (e) of subsection 4 of section 281 of the Act.
Access
From details provided in the copy of the application for lease, it appears access is through the same property. There are no details of this access or the effect it will have on the operations of the landowners. I award a nominal sum of $50 in relation to access to the claim, noting that the term of the lease is not of a short duration.
Blot on title
The loss of land through a mining tenure of lengthy duration has been accepted by the Land Court as similar to permanent acquisition for a limited time (Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR). In this instance, the lease is over an area of 18 ha, and the term of the lease is 21 years. In the absence of any evidence, I make no allowance for any perceived blot on title. I note that a mining lease grants the right to mine on a limited area for a limited time. Other than the right to mine, the grant of a lease does not create any interest or title in the land. There is no endorsement or registration of the lease on the background title document.
Quantum
In making this determination I take into account that the only other viable use of the land is low intensity grazing. I consider mining operations on this lease of this size would have no measurable effect on the operations conducted on the property for at least half of each year, probably longer. There would be some minor effect which would include the noise of machinery and the movement of people and vehicles on or about the lease area and along the access road. There is no evidence of severance of one part of the property from any other part and I make no allowance for injurious affection of the balance of the property.
It is not the usual event that the mining lease is fenced to keep stock out, and it is common practice for the balance of the lease not disturbed by mining to be left available for grazing by stock and native fauna. This determination will reflect the level of usage of the surface of the lease by the miner against the right of the landowner to receive compensation and place the landowner is as near a position that a monetary award can as if the lease did not exist.
Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider that the following award will satisfy the requirements of s.281 for the term of the lease for the limited purposes authorised by the lease. Drawing then on the limited evidence that is available, I determine compensation under Part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, to satisfy all heads of compensation set forth in subsection 3 of section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 shall be the sum of $5 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease. I award the additional sum of $50 for access. The aggregate total of these awards is $1,940. I further award the sum of $90 (rounded) under s.281(4)(e) to reflect the compulsory nature of the action taken under this part
Terms of payment
In relation to the terms, conditions and times when payments should be made, I take into account the quantum of the order, the size of the lease and the period of the lease. In these circumstances, I order that the miner pay total compensation in the sum of $1,065 within a period of three months from notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar; the balance to be payable five years from the date of the grant of the mining lease. Payments are to be made to the landowner at the time payment is due.
Costs
Neither party has sought an order for costs and in this matter it is not appropriate that costs be awarded.
BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
11
0
0