Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd (No 2)

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Skilton v 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QLC 8

PARTIES:

Gerald David George Skilton
(applicant)

v

2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd
(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA201-19

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

Submissions closed 20 December 2019

HEARD AT:

Heard on the papers

MEMBER:

PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

1.   Gerald Skilton must pay 2PL Superannuation Pty Ltd compensation as follows:

a.    $5,732.10 for the cost of the Access Negotiations report ($5,211 plus 10%);

b.    $1,320 per annum in administration and inspection costs ($1,200 plus 10%);

c.     If Mr Skilton’s work on the mining lease impedes access to Bath Tub Dam so that the construction of an alternative watering point is required—$3,414.40 ($3,104 plus 10%), to be paid within 30 days of presentation of an invoice;

d.    If 2PL is required to muster and walk cattle down an alternative to the access track when it is blocked because Mr Skilton has not provided appropriate access—$1,760 ($1,600 plus 10%);

e.    If Mr Skilton’s mining operation requires 2PL to take the longer route to check watering points—$14.66 ($13.33 plus 10%); and

f.     Thirty-three per cent (30% plus 10% of 30%) of any invoice for reasonably necessary track grading during the term of the mining lease, to be paid within 30 days of presentation of an invoice, with a maximum of one invoice per year.

2.   The gross amounts payable in orders 1(b)-(e) are to be indexed annually according to the CPI in Brisbane.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the land was used for commercial cattle operations – whether there was an entitlement to compensation for deprivation of possession of the surface of land – whether there was an entitlement to compensation for diminution of the value of the land – whether there was entitlement to compensation for diminution of the use made of the land or any improvements thereon – whether there was entitlement to compensation for loss or expense arising from the mining operations – whether there was entitlement to compensation for the cost of preparing a valuation report

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281

Byerwen Coal Pty Ltd v Colinta Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] QLC 49
Deimel v Phelps [2020] QLC 2
Deimel v Phelps [2019] QLC 4
Friese v Lonergan & Anor [2019] QLC 27
Mitchell v Oakhill & Anor [1998] QLC 25
Valantine v Henry [2018] QLC 21
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (No. 2) (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

1. This case highlights some perennial problems with mining compensation matters. The first problem is something I have mentioned before; compensation is not to be determined, as miners would prefer, by applying a standard rate per hectare without considering whether or not a landowner incurred actual loss or expense. The first problem highlights the second problem; a landowner must show actual loss or…