Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd - [2019] QLC 45

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd [2019] QLC 45

PARTIES: Gerald David George Skilton
(applicant)

v

2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd
ACN 159 808 536
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA201-19

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Application for stay of proceedings

DELIVERED ON: 4 November 2019 [ex tempore]

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 4 November 2019

HEARD AT: Brisbane

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER: The application to stay the matter filed by the respondent on 17 October 2019 is refused.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where both parties were automatically referred to the Court after lapsing of period in relevant mining legislation - where a compensation determination was required for the grant of a mining lease – where the landholder sought a stay of the mining lease compensation proceedings pending the judicial review of the mining lease recommendation – whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of a stay where the judicial review application was framed so that the mining lease recommendation would either confirm or reject the recommendation but would not otherwise alter the conditions attached to the recommendation

Bengal Coal Pty Ltd v Cradcorp Coal Pty Ltd as TTE [2017] QLC 16, cited
Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213, cited
Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v S (2007) 98 ALD 329; [2007] WASCA 230, cited
Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453; [2008] QCA 322, cited
Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342; [1998] QCA 367, cited
New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Smith [2017] QSC 216, cited
Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited [2018] QLC 5, distinguished

APPEARANCES:
G Skilton, the applicant (self-represented), respondent for the application for stay of proceedings
P Lonergan (agent), for the respondent, applicant for the application for stay of proceedings

This is an application by 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd to stay a determination of compensation pending the result of a judicial review of my decision to recommend the grant of a lease.[1]
[1]See Skilton v Lonergan & Ors [2019] QLC 28.

The fundamental principle governing applications for a stay is that the successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of its judgment, and the question is whether there is some particular feature of a case which warrants departure from that position.[2]
[2]Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213, 2.

The question of whether a stay should be granted is usually addressed according to established principles, which are: is it an appropriate case to grant a stay?[3] Does the applicant have an arguable case on the judicial review?[4] Would a refusal of the stay render the judicial review nugatory?[5] And does the balance of convenience favour the granting of a stay?[6]
[3]Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342, 348.
[4]Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork…

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 Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd 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 45
Decision Date: 4 November 2019 [ex tempore]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd involved the landholder, Skilton, and the mining company, 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia and centred on a compensation determination required for the grant of a mining lease. Following the expiration of a period under the relevant mining legislation, both parties were automatically referred to the court for this determination. Skilton sought a stay of the compensation proceedings pending the judicial review of the mining lease recommendation, arguing that the balance of convenience favoured such a stay.

The court had to decide whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay of the compensation proceedings. This required an assessment of the potential impact of the stay on both parties, considering the specific nature of the judicial review application. The application was framed in such a way that it would either confirm or reject the mining lease recommendation without altering the conditions attached to it. The court's task was to weigh the implications of proceeding with the compensation proceedings against the potential benefits of a stay.

The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of a stay. The court emphasised that the judicial review application would not alter the conditions attached to the mining lease recommendation, and therefore, the stay would not serve to prevent any significant prejudice to the respondent. The court was also mindful of the importance of expeditious resolution of compensation matters in the mining sector. Consequently, the application to stay the matter was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to stay the matter filed by the respondent on 17 October 2019 is refused.

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:	Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd [2019] QLC 45
PARTIES:	Gerald David George Skilton (applicant)
v
2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd ACN 159 808 536 (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA201-19
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for stay of proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2019 [ex tempore]
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	4 November 2019
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDER:	The application to stay the matter filed by the respondent on 17 October 2019 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where both parties were automatically referred to the Court after lapsing of period in relevant mining legislation - where a compensation determination was required for the grant of a mining lease – where the landholder sought a stay of the mining lease compensation proceedings pending the judicial review of the mining lease recommendation – whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of a stay where the judicial review application was framed so that the mining lease recommendation would either confirm or reject the recommendation but would not otherwise alter the conditions attached to the recommendation
Bengal Coal Pty Ltd v Cradcorp Coal Pty Ltd as TTE [2017] QLC 16, cited Berry v Green [1999] QCA 213, cited Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v S (2007) 98 ALD 329; [2007] WASCA 230, cited Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 453; [2008] QCA 322, cited Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342; [1998] QCA 367, cited New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Smith [2017] QSC 216, cited Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited [2018] QLC 5, distinguished
APPEARANCES:	G Skilton, the applicant (self-represented), respondent for the application for stay of proceedings P Lonergan (agent), for the respondent, applicant for the application for stay of proceedings