Re Gotap Pty Ltd - [2009] QLC 29

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Gotap Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 0029

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 95585 – Application by Gotap Pty Ltd for determination of compensation payable to Richard E Neilson
FILE NO:MLC00168/2008
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:         20 February 2009
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $720.
2. I award an additional amount of $80 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $800 to the current landowner within 3 months of notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
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 applicant Gotap Pty Ltd (the miner) seeks the grant of Mining Lease 95585 in the Winton District. The applicant seeks a term of 10 years. The application lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Winton on 26 February 2008.

The lease is located on Eulo Station which is more particularly described as Lot 2148 on Plan PH2018, Parish of Boobera, County of Humeburn. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The lease is over an area of 13.98 hectares and is sought for the purpose of mining for opal and infrastructure requirements. For the purpose of this application I round off the area to 14 hectares.

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…

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 Re Gotap Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Gotap Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 29
Case: [2009] QLC 29
Decision Date: 20 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Gotap Pty Ltd concerns an application by Gotap Pty Ltd, seeking the grant of Mining Lease 95585 in the Winton District of Queensland. The applicant, Gotap Pty Ltd, aimed to mine for opal and related infrastructure over an area of 13.98 hectares, rounded off to 14 hectares for simplicity, for a term of 10 years. The matter was referred to the Land Court for the determination of compensation payable to Richard E Neilson, the current landowner, as required under the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

The central legal issues addressed by the court involved determining the appropriate compensation payable to the landowner under the Act, considering various factors such as the loss of land use, access, and any potential blot on title. The court was tasked with assessing the compensation in accordance with section 281(3) of the Act, which lists the matters to be considered but does not prescribe a specific method of assessment. The court had to weigh these considerations against the evidence presented and determine an appropriate compensation amount.

In its reasoning, the court noted that no formal valuation evidence was provided by either party, making it challenging to arrive at a precise compensation figure. Given the small area involved, the court decided that the cost of a valuation would not justify the compensation amount. The court awarded compensation based on prior agreements and determinations in the area, which ranged from about $5 per hectare per year to $15 per hectare per year. The court awarded $5 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, and an additional $20 for access. Further, under section 281(4)(e) of the Act, the court awarded an additional $80 to reflect the compulsory nature of the action. The total compensation was set at $800, to be paid within three months of the grant of the mining lease notification by the Mining Registrar. No order for costs was made.

This case highlights the court's role in determining compensation for mining leases when an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, ensuring that the landowner is fairly compensated while balancing the interests of the mining company.

Orders