Re Wirralie Mines and Crocker - [2009] QLC 71

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Wirralie Mines and Crocker [2009] QLC 0071

PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 1079 by Wirralie Mines Pty Ltd and Joyce Iris Crocker
FILE NO:MLC00056/2009
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  29 May 2009
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $97,600
2. I award an additional amount of $9,760 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3.   I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $107,400 (rounded) to landowner for the time being; $35,800 within three months of notification of grant of renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar; thereafter in two instalments each of $35,800 on the fifth and tenth anniversary of the first payment being one.
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 Wirralie Mines Pty Ltd (the miner) seeks the renewal of grant of Mining Leases 1079in the Charters Towers District. The applicant seeks a term of 15 years. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar Charters Towers on 6 May 2008.

The leases are located on Pastoral Holding 2090. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The leases is over a surface area of 1300ha (rounded) and is sought for the purpose of mining for gold and other minerals.

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…

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 Wirralie Mines and Crocker 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 71
Decision Date: 29 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wirralie Mines Pty Ltd applied for the renewal of Mining Leases 1079 in the Charters Towers District. The application was heard by the Land Court of Queensland, which was tasked with determining the compensation payable to the landowner for the lease renewal under the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The Court was required to assess the compensation under section 281 of the Act, considering the factors outlined in section 281(3). The Court was not mandated to adopt a specific method of valuation but had to ensure that the compensation awarded sufficiently accounted for the factors listed in section 281(3).

The Court considered the relevant factors for determining compensation, including the loss of use of the land, the area affected by the lease, the effect of access on the landowner, and the blot on title. The Court noted that no formal valuation evidence was provided, and the cost of obtaining a valuation would likely outweigh any award for compensation. The Court also considered prior determinations and agreements for leases and claims in the Charters Towers area, which ranged from about $5 to $15 per hectare per year. The Court found that the compensation should be $5 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, plus an additional $100 for access, resulting in a total of $97,600. The Court further awarded an additional $9,760 under section 281(4)(c) to reflect the compulsory nature of the action taken under this part, resulting in a total compensation of $107,400.

The Court ordered that the miner pay compensation to the current landowner in the sum of $35,800 within three months from notification of grant of renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar; thereafter two instalments each of $35,800 on the fifth and tenth anniversary of the first payment being due. The Court made no order for costs as neither party sought an order for costs.

Orders