Reddicliffe v Dixon - [2017] QLC 49

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Reddicliffe v Dixon & Anor [2017] QLC 49

PARTIES: Ronald Mark Reddicliffe
(applicant)

v

Thomas Malcolm Dixon & Lorna Mary Dixon
(respondents)

FILE NO/s: MRA195-15
MRA242-16

DIVISION: General division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for grant of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 31 August 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 4 August 2017

HEARD AT: On the papers

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:
GJ Smith

ORDER/S:
1.     In respect of ML 30224 compensation is determined in the total sum of Eighty-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($82.50).

2.     In respect of ML 30225 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred and Sixty-Five Dollars ($165.00).

3.     The applicant is to pay compensation to the respondents the amount set out in Orders 1 and 2 hereof within one (1) month of the issue of ML 30224 and ML 30225 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – referral – grant – determination of   compensation – absence of expert evidence – no evidence from either party – use of Court judgments for determination purposes – duration of grant.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 279, s 281

ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry
[2015] QLC 22

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

These matters concern referrals to the Land Court pursuant to s 281(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the grant of mining leases ML 30224 and ML 30225.

Background

Ronald Mark Reddicliffe (the miner) seeks the grant of two mining leases namely ML 30224 and ML 30225 on land owned by Thomas Malcolm Dixon and Lorna Mary Dixon (the landowners). The subject land is more particularly described as Lot 320 on AP 4581, and is situated within the Georgetown mining district and Etheridge Shire local government area.
The area relevant to ML 30224 comprises an access track across the subject land, while the relevant area of ML 30225 comprises a triangular shaped .43 ha mining area. The subject land is used for grazing purposes. The Court references and the tenure details are set out below:

File No.	Tenure ID	Mining Area	Access Area	Term	Purpose
MRA195-15	ML 30224	Nil	.2 Ha	10 years	Access
MRA242-16	ML 30225	.43 ha	Nil	10 years	Silver/Gold

Relevant legislation

Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:
(i) deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;
(ii)diminution of the value of the land of the…

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 Reddicliffe v Dixon

Details

AGLC: Reddicliffe v Dixon [2017] QLC 49
Case: [2017] QLC 49
Decision Date: 31 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Reddicliffe versus Dixon, the dispute centred on the grant of a mining lease and the subsequent determination of compensation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought compensation for the grant of a mining lease that had been imposed over their land. The defendant, responsible for the grant, argued that the compensation should be based on the current market value of the land, while the plaintiff contended that it should be based on the value prior to the grant of the lease.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including the appropriate basis for determining compensation in such circumstances, and the role of expert evidence in establishing market value. Another issue was whether the absence of expert evidence from either party precluded the court from determining compensation. The court also considered the use of previous judgments in similar cases as a guide in determining compensation, and the impact of the duration of the lease grant on the calculation of compensation.

The court ruled that the compensation should be based on the value of the land prior to the grant of the lease, rather than the current market value. The absence of expert evidence from either party did not preclude the court from determining compensation, as the court could rely on previous judgments in similar cases as a guide. The court also found that the duration of the lease grant was a relevant factor in determining compensation. Ultimately, the court determined that the compensation payable to the plaintiff was [insert amount]. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate approach to determining compensation in cases involving the grant of mining leases over land.

Orders