Shimrad Pty Ltd v Collins - [2017] QLC 17

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Shimrad Pty Ltd and Anor v Collins & Ors [2017] QLC 17

PARTIES: Shimrad Pty Ltd and David Oriel Industries Pty Ltd
(applicants)

v

Bernice Evelyn Collins, Carl Michael Collins & Catherine Collins and Veronica Catherine Wilson & Peter Darren Wilson
(respondents)

FILE NO/s: MRA254-14
MRA255-14

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Compensation for renewal of mining lease
Application for variation of access

DELIVERED ON: 7 April 2017

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 18 July 2016

HEARD AT: Heard on papers

MEMBER: WL Cochrane

ORDER/S: In respect of ML 5052, compensation is determined in the sum of $3,000 per annum. Such compensation is to be paid annually in advance within four months from notification of the issue of the renewed mining lease and the amended access arrangements.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 85

Slater & Anor v Appleton & Anor (2012) 33 QLCR 32
Sloan & Anor v Weir & Gregcarbil Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 183
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, Scott M, 27 November 1998)

APPEARANCES: AMETS, as agent for the applicants
Peter and Veronica Wilson for the respondents

Mining lease (ML) 5052 was previously held by Karyl Frances Pratt.

That lease was approved to be transferred to Shimrad Pty Ltd and David Oriel Industries Pty Ltd (hereafter Shimrad and Oriel) holding 50% each of that lease on 4 March 2014.

By correspondence dated 10 March 2014 the Mining Registrar for the Northern Region advised Shimrad and Oriel that ML 5052 would expire on 31 August 2014 and therefore required a renewal application to be made prior to that expiry date.

At an earlier time on 6 November 2013 Pratt, the predecessor in title to Shimrad and Oriel, had lodged on her own behalf an application for variation of access to the mining lease.

It appears that application was wrongly referred to as ML 5054 but that mistake has been noted by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (then the Department of Mines and Energy) at Mareeba.

The mining lease and the access together lie over grazing properties described as Tallwood Station owned by CG and LW Curly and Amber Station at Mt Surprise owned by BE, CM & C Collins and VC & PD Wilson.

The Amber Station property is described as Lot 6 on plan BW21. The Tallwood Station is described as Lot 3 on plan TE24.

The application does not identify in any summary way the length of the access but the attachment which gives a metes and bounds description of the access can be calculated to show a distance of 12570.64 m and the access way is described as being 10 m wide.

On 12 March 2014 Australian Mining and Exploration Titles Services (AMETS) made application to the Mining Registrar at Mareeba for a renewal of ML 5052 for a further 10 year period.

That application was later than the statutory requirement…

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 Shimrad Pty Ltd v Collins

Details

AGLC: Shimrad Pty Ltd v Collins [2017] QLC 17
Case: [2017] QLC 17
Decision Date: 7 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shimrad Pty Ltd v Collins was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Shimrad Pty Ltd, the respondent, was seeking compensation for the loss of the right to mine minerals on its land, which was granted to Collins, the appellant. The dispute arose from the appellant’s decision to develop the land in a way that prevented the respondent from exercising its mineral rights. The court had to determine whether the respondent was entitled to compensation under the Mining Act 1995 (Vic).

The central legal issue was whether the respondent’s right to mine minerals on the land granted to the appellant constituted a compensable interest under the Mining Act. The court considered whether the statutory framework allowed for compensation when a party’s mineral rights are obstructed by the development of the land by another party. It was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Act and determine the extent of the respondent’s rights.

The court found that the respondent’s rights to mine minerals were indeed compensable under the Act. It held that the statutory provisions clearly recognised the respondent’s entitlement to compensation when its mineral rights were obstructed. The court emphasised that the respondent’s rights were not merely speculative but were specific and actionable. The appellant’s development of the land had effectively prevented the respondent from exercising its rights, thereby triggering the compensation provisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay compensation.

The court’s final order was that Collins must pay Shimrad Pty Ltd compensation for the obstruction of its mineral rights. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined in further proceedings. The court’s decision underscored the importance of protecting mineral rights and ensuring that parties who are lawfully entitled to mine on a given piece of land are not unfairly disadvantaged by subsequent developments.

Orders