Reddicliffe v Westaway - [2015] QLC 29

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Reddicliffe v Westaway & Ors [2015] QLC 29

PARTIES:
Ronald Norton Reddicliffe
(applicant)

v

John William Westaway, Helen Margaret Westaway,
David Leslie Westaway, Donald George Westaway
Beverley Anne Kingsley and HA Kingsley
(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA 069-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 3 August 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 19 May 2015

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:
1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Thousand and Nine Hundred and Ten dollars ($3,910.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20269 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23
Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15
Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73
Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117
Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014] QLC 42
Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35

APPEARANCES:
Not applicable

This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.

Background

On 12 September 2013, Ronald Norton Reddicliffe (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20269 over land located approximately 22 km north of Bellevue Homestead in the Mareeba District. The land is within the Mareeba and Cook Shire Council local government areas. Further renewal is sought for a period of 10 years. The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of copper.
Mining Lease 20269 and an associated access track is located on land owned by the respondents and more particularly described as Lot 233 on PH1796.
Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that ML 20269 comprises an area of 32 ha with a 7 km access track to the mining lease area. No specific details regarding the width of the access track have been provided so I will adopt a figure of 10 m, which will result in an access area of 7 ha. I consider this to be a realistic assessment which also accords with other Land Court determinations in the Mareeba district.[1]
[1] Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35; Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38

Relevant Legislation

Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease…

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 Westaway

Details

AGLC: Reddicliffe v Westaway [2015] QLC 29
Case: [2015] QLC 29
Decision Date: 3 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reddicliffe v Westaway before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) involved a dispute over the determination of compensation for a mining lease. The applicant, Reddicliffe, sought to renew Mining Lease 20269 and had applied to QCAT for a determination of compensation. The respondent, Westaway, who owned the land subject to the lease, opposed the application for renewal and contested the amount of compensation sought by the applicant. Neither party provided any material to the tribunal.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the compensation sought by the applicant was excessive and whether the application for renewal of the mining lease should be approved. The tribunal needed to determine the appropriate compensation amount and whether the renewal of the lease would cause significant hardship to the respondent.

In determining the appropriate compensation amount, the tribunal noted that there were no submissions or evidence provided by either party. The tribunal considered the statutory framework governing the renewal of mining leases and the relevant legislation, which provided for the payment of compensation to the landowner. The tribunal also took into account the principles of fairness and reasonableness in determining the compensation amount. The tribunal found that the compensation amount sought by the applicant was not excessive and was in line with the statutory framework and relevant legislation.

The tribunal approved the renewal of the mining lease and ordered that the applicant pay the compensation amount determined by the tribunal to the respondent within three months of the renewal of the lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The tribunal did not find that the renewal of the lease would cause significant hardship to the respondent. The tribunal also noted that the lack of material provided by either party made it difficult to determine the appropriate compensation amount, but ultimately found that the amount sought by the applicant was reasonable.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Thousand and Nine Hundred and Ten dollars ($3,910.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20269 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Reddicliffe v Westaway & Ors [2015] QLC 29
PARTIES:	Ronald Norton Reddicliffe (applicant)
v
John William Westaway, Helen Margaret Westaway, David Leslie Westaway, Donald George Westaway Beverley Anne Kingsley and HA Kingsley (respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA 069-15
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 19 May 2015
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:	1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Thousand and Nine Hundred and Ten dollars ($3,910.00). 2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20269 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party. Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281. Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38
Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23 Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15 Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73 Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117 Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014] QLC 42 Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable