Skilton v Lonergan - [2019] QLC 28

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Skilton v Lonergan & Ors [2019] QLC 28

PARTIES: Gerald David George Skilton
(applicant)

v

Patrick Joseph Lonergan
(objector)

Prue Madeline Lonergan
(objector)

and

Department of Environment and Science
(statutory party)

FILE NOs: MRA152-18 (MLA100108)
EPA157-18 (EPSL04437816)

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objection;
Objection to application for environmental authority

DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2019

DELIVERED AT: In chambers

HEARD ON: 3 & 4 April 2019
Submissions closed 20 May 2019

HEARD AT: Clermont

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDER/S:
1. Pursuant to s 269(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, I recommend to the Honourable Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy that Mining Lease 100108 be granted over the application area.

2. Pursuant to s 190(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, I recommend to the administering authority that the Environmental Authority be issued in terms of the draft Environmental Authority EPSL04437816 without amendment.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – TITLES: RIGHTS, PERMITS, LICENCES AND LEASES ETC – where the applicant sought a mining lease for a small-scale gold mine – where the landholder objected to the mining lease primarily on grounds of non-compliance with the relevant mining legislation, past performance, and adverse environmental impacts – where there was a history of similar mining activities in the area – whether the applicant’s previous non-compliance and past performance were sufficient enough to warrant refusal – whether the adverse environmental impacts were proportionate to the aims of the relevant environmental protection legislation

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION – where a draft environmental authority was issued with standard conditions for a small-scale gold mine – whether the administering authority’s standard conditions were sufficient to achieve the aims of the relevant environmental protection legislation

Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 3, s 190, s 191
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 235, s 268, s 269

ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Quandamooka Lands Council Aboriginal Corporation [2002] 1 Qd R 347; [2001] QCA 119, followed
Gloucester Resources Ltd v Minister for Planning (2019) 234 LGERA 257; [2019] NSWLEC 7, cited
Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] 2 Qd R 720; [2017] QSC 53, distinguished
Valantine v Henry [2018] QLC 21, followed
Wilson v Southedge Daintree Pastoral Company Pty Ltd and Weymouth Pastoral Company Pty Ltd [2008] QLC 234, cited

APPEARANCES:
G Skilton, the applicant (self-represented)
DT Marland (solicitor), Marland Law, for the objectors
S Barclay (in-house legal), for the statutory party

Gerald Skilton has been mining for gold on Rolfe Creek, 31 km northwest of Clermont, for many years under two mining leases negotiated with the previous owners. He applied for the grant of a new mining lease on the property. The current owners, Patrick and Prue Lonergan have objected to the grant. They have also objected to the conditions in the…

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 Skilton v Lonergan

Details

AGLC: Skilton v Lonergan & Ors [2019] QLC 28
Case: [2019] QLC 28
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Skilton v Lonergan involved a dispute between the applicant, Skilton, who sought a mining lease for a small-scale gold mine, and the landholder, Lonergan, who objected to the mining lease. The objections were primarily on grounds of non-compliance with relevant mining legislation, the applicant's past performance, and potential adverse environmental impacts. The application was brought before the court to determine whether the applicant’s previous non-compliance and past performance warranted the refusal of the mining lease, and whether the potential environmental impacts were disproportionate to the objectives of the environmental protection legislation.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the applicant’s history of non-compliance and past performance were significant enough to warrant the refusal of the mining lease. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the potential adverse environmental impacts of the mining operation would be disproportionate to the aims of the environmental protection legislation. This involved a detailed examination of the relevant legislation, the standard conditions for a draft environmental authority, and the proportionality of the potential environmental impacts to the objectives of the legislation.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant mining legislation, the applicant's past performance, and the potential environmental impacts of the mining operation. The court found that the applicant's previous non-compliance and past performance were not sufficient grounds to refuse the mining lease outright, but they were factors to be considered in the overall assessment. Regarding the environmental impacts, the court concluded that the standard conditions in the draft environmental authority were adequate to mitigate the potential adverse effects and align with the objectives of the environmental protection legislation. Consequently, the court determined that the potential environmental impacts were proportionate to the aims of the legislation.

The court ordered that the mining lease be granted, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the draft environmental authority. This included adherence to the standard conditions aimed at mitigating the environmental impacts of the mining operation. The decision allowed the mining lease to proceed while ensuring that the environmental protection objectives were met.

Orders