Re Wieben - [2008] QLC 229

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Wieben [2008] QLC 0229

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease 90009 – Application by Sydney Wieben for determination of compensation payable to Great Southern Cattle Holdings Pty Ltd
FILE N::MLC00111/2008
PROCEEDING:  Application to determine compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  19 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $485.
2. I award an additional amount of $50 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $535 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 Sydney Wieben (the miner) seeks the renewal of grant of Mining Lease 90009 in the Charters Towers District for a term of five years. The application lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Charters Towers on 15 November 2007.

The lease is located on Chudleigh Park Holding which is more particularly described as Lot 3 on CP846344. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The lease is over an area of 18.95 ha and is sought for the purpose of mining for gold and infrastructure requirements. For the purpose of this application I round off the area to 19 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…

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 Wieben

Details

AGLC: Re Wieben [2008] QLC 229
Case: [2008] QLC 229
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Wieben involved the applicant Sydney Wieben seeking the renewal of grant of Mining Lease 90009 in the Charters Towers District for a term of five years. The lease, located on Chudleigh Park Holding, is sought for the purpose of mining for gold and infrastructure requirements. Given that no agreement on compensation had been filed with the Registrar, the matter was referred to the court for determination under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court had to consider the compensation payable to the current landowner, Great Southern Cattle Holdings Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the compensation payable to the landowner for the mining lease under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court had to consider various factors such as the area of the lease, the potential impact on the landowner's operations, and the customary rates for compensation in the area. There was no formal valuation evidence presented by either party, and the court had to rely on the existing compensation access agreement and prior determinations in similar cases.

The court reasoned that due to the small area of the lease and the limited duration, the cost of a formal valuation would outweigh the potential compensation award. The court noted that the land could be used for low-intensity grazing and that mining operations would likely have a minor effect on the landowner's operations. The court determined that the compensation should reflect the level of usage of the surface of the lease by the miner against the landowner's right to receive compensation. The court awarded compensation at a rate of $5 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, totaling $485, and an additional $10 for access. The court also awarded an additional $50 under section 281(4)(e) to reflect the compulsory nature of the action, resulting in a total compensation award of $535.

The court ordered that the miner pay the total compensation to the current landowner within three months of notification of the grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. No order for costs was made as neither party sought such an order.

Orders