Rock Solid Holdings Qld Pty Ltd v Faint

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Rock Solid Holdings Qld Pty Ltd v Faint [2019] QLC 50
PARTIES: Rock Solid Holdings QLD Pty Ltd
(applicant)
v
Ross William Faint & William Edward Faint
(non-active objectors)
FILE NO: MRA382-19 (MLA100158, MLA100159, MLA100160, MLA100161)
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objection
DELIVERED ON: 20 December 2019
DELIVERED AT: On the papers
HEARD ON: Submissions due 2 December 2019
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
PRESDIENT: FY Kingham
ORDER: I recommend to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989, that MLs 100158, 100159, 100160, and 100161be granted.
CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant applied for four mining leases to mine gold – where the objectors to the mining lease did not elect to be active parties in the hearing – where the landholders do not consent to the grant of mining leases over the surface of land that is restricted land – whether the area is mineralised – where the Court recommended the leases should be granted

Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 68
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 238, s 245, s 252, s 268(3), s 269(4), s 279, s 283B

Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts & Anor (2011) 180 LGERA 99; [2011] FCAFC 59, cited.
Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough & Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473; [1975] HCA 17, cited.

Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451; [1995] FCAFC 1726, cited.

APPEARANCES: Not applicable
  1. Rock Solid Holdings QLD Pty Ltd has applied for four mining leases (MLAs 100158 – 100161) to mine gold in an area 18 to 21 km north/north-west of Clermont, in the Mining District of Emerald. The four leases, respectively known as “Nuggets Galore,” “Old Yellow,” “Springs,” and “Springs East,” collectively comprise the “Blackridge Conglomerate Gold Project Clermont.”

  1. Ross William Faint and William Edward Faint are the freehold owners of Lot 21 on SP263857 and are the registered lessees of Lot 23 on CLM340. The MLAs affect the land held by the Faints under both tenures: the freehold, by Nuggets Galore and Springs East; and the leasehold, by all applications except Springs East.

  1. The landowners lodged an objection to the grant of the mining leases,[1] but did not elect to be active parties in the hearing. That means they played no active part in the Court process.[2] Nevertheless, I must consider their objection when deciding what recommendation to make on Rock Solid’s applications.[3] Also, I must consider the statutory criteria specified in the Mineral Resources Act 1989.[4]

Has Rock Solid complied with the provisions of the MRA?[5]

[1]Ex 10, Objection form for a mining lease application.

[2]Land Court Practice Direction 4 of 2018.

[3]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 268(3).

[4]Ibid s 269(4).

[5]Ibid s 269(4)(a).

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rock Solid Holdings Qld Pty Ltd v Faint 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
[2019] QLC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rock Solid Holdings Qld Pty Ltd sought an application for four mining leases to mine gold. Faint objected to the mining leases, but did not elect to be an active party in the hearing. The landholders did not consent to the grant of the leases over the restricted land. The Queensland Resources and Mines Court was tasked with determining whether the area was mineralised and if the leases should be granted. The Court had to consider the objectors' lack of active participation, the landholders' non-consent, and the potential mineralisation of the area.

The primary issue was whether the applicant should be granted mining leases despite the objectors' passive objection and the landholders' non-consent, particularly in light of the land's restricted status. The Court needed to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to recommend the leases' approval, considering the lack of active objection and the potential for mineralisation. The Court also had to weigh the interests of the applicant, objectors, and landholders in its decision.

The Court concluded that the objectors' lack of active participation in the hearing did not prevent the Court from recommending the leases' approval. It noted that the landholders' non-consent was a significant factor but not necessarily determinative. The Court found that the area had potential for mineralisation, which supported the applicant's case. Balancing the interests of all parties, the Court recommended that the leases be granted to the applicant.

The Court recommended to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy that mining leases 100158, 100159, 100160, and 100161 be granted to Rock Solid Holdings Qld Pty Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

I recommend to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989, that MLs 100158, 100159, 100160, and 100161be granted.

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.