Re Tennant Limited & PJ Hall - [2009] QLC 34

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Tennant Limited & PJ Hall [2009] QLC 0034

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 7510 – Application by Tennant Limited for determination of compensation payable to PJ Hall
FILE NO:MLC00144/2008
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:         4 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDER/S:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $35.
2. I award an additional amount of $10 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $45 to the current landowner within three 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 Tennant Limited (the miner) seeks the renewal of Mining Lease 7510 in the Cloncurry District. The applicant seeks a term of 5 years. The application lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Mt Isa on 17 August 2007.

The lease is located on Pastoral Holding 1474, 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 1 ha and is sought for the purpose of mining for silver ore, gold and copper ore.

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,…

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 Re Tennant Limited & PJ Hall 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: [2009] QLC 34
Decision Date: 4 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tennant Limited applied to the Land Court of Queensland for a determination of compensation payable to PJ Hall in relation to the renewal of Mining Lease 7510. The lease, covering an area of 1 ha, was sought for mining purposes, including silver ore, gold, and copper ore, in the Cloncurry District. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Mt Isa on 17 August 2007. The court was required to determine the compensation payable to the landowner under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, as no agreement had been filed with the Registrar.

The court considered the relevant factors under s.281(3) of the Act, including the nature of the lease, its size, and the purpose of the mining. The court noted that there was no formal valuation evidence, and due to the small area involved, the cost of a valuation would far outweigh any award for compensation. The court also considered the limited use of the land, which was primarily for low-intensity grazing. The court awarded compensation of $5 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, along with an additional $10 for access and $10 for the compulsory nature of the action, making the total compensation $45. The court directed that the total compensation be paid within three months of notification of the grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. No order for costs was made.

This case highlights the importance of considering the relevant factors when determining compensation under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, and the need for a fair and reasonable compensation award that reflects the nature of the lease and the purpose of the mining. The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the factors that should be considered when determining compensation in similar cases.

Orders