Re Midas Resources Limited & Whitsunday Regional Council
[2009] QLC 35
•4 March 2009
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Midas Resources Limited & Whitsunday Regional Council [2009] QLC 0035
PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 1028 – Application by Midas Resources Limited for determination of compensation payable to Whitsunday Regional Council
FILE NO:MLC00153/2008
PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON: 4 March 2009
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $1,600.
2. I award an additional amount of $180 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $1,760 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, Ss 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 Midas Resources Limited (the miner) seeks the grant of Mining Lease 1028 in the Charters Towers District. The applicant seeks a term of 20 years. The application lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Charters Towers on 5 July 2005.
The lease is located partly on Road Reserve 45/46746, Parish of Boobera, County of Humeburn. Access is through the same property. The lease is over an area of about 7.8 ha of this Road Reserve and is sought for the purpose of mining for silver, arsenic ore, gold, bismuth, copper, lead, zinc and vanadium ore. For the purpose of this application I round off the area to 8 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 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 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 Council has lost the use of the lease area of 8 ha for the term of the lease.
Prior determinations and agreements for leases and claims in the Charters Towers 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.
Quantum
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 grant of 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 $10 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease. The aggregate total of these awards is $1,600. I further award the sum of $160 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 to the current landowners in the sum of $1,760 within a period of three months from notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
Costs
Neither party has sought an order for costs and in this matter it is not appropriate that costs be awarded.
BR O’CONNOR
JUDCIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0