Stoverink, A v Higgins

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Stoverink, B v Higgins; Stoverink, A v Higgins                 [2016] QLC 26*
PARTIES:

Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink
(applicant MRA389-15)

Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink
(applicant MRA388-15)

v
Andrew Massey Home Higgins
(respondent)
FILE NO: MRA388-15 & MRA389-15
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining claims
DELIVERED ON: 21 April 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 11 November 2015
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDERS:

1.          In respect of MC60049 compensation is determined in an amount of $45 per annum in respect of the renewal period of 5 years, giving a total amount of $225.

2.          That Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink

pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 within one month from notification of the renewal of the mining claim by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

3.          In respect of MC60301 compensation is determined in an amount of $410 per annum in respect of the renewal period of 10 years, giving a total amount of $4100.

4.          That Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink

pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in order 3 within four months from notification of the renewal of the mining claim by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING CLAIM – determination of compensation -renewal – factors to be considered – weight of material provided – impact of mining and drought conditions.
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 85
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Fazzari v Colonial Agricultural Company Limited [2003] QLRT 38
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, JJ Trickett, President, 10 March 1998)
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No 2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

  1. This matter involves two referrals to the Land Court pursuant to s 85(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining claim.

Background

  1. Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink applied for the renewal of Mining Claim 60049 on 23 January 2015 and Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink applied for the renewal of Mining Claim 60301 on 30 March 2015.  The land upon which the Mining Claims are located is approximately 80 km north-west of Cunnamulla in the Quilpie District.  The land is within the Paroo Shire Council local government area.  The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of opal, gemstones and corundum.

  2. The land upon which the Mining Claims and access tracks are situated is known as Boobera Station and is owned by Andrew Massey Home Higgins (the respondent).  The land is more particularly described as Lot 21 on Plan HU 53 and is approximately 26452.73 hectares in area.  The opal mined on Boobera Station is known as the Koroit Opal.

  3. The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows: 

Court Reference Tenure ID Tenure Area Access Term
MRA388-15 MC60301 12.67 ha 1 km 10 years
MRA389-15 MC60049
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stoverink, A v Higgins 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
[2016] QLC 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink and Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink brought an appeal against the decisions of the Mining Registrar to determine compensation for the renewal of mining claims MC60049 and MC60301. The Registrar had determined compensation for the renewal of the mining claims based on the weight of the material provided and the impact of mining and drought conditions. The appellants argued that the Registrar had not properly considered the relevant factors in determining the compensation.

The court had to decide whether the Registrar had erred in determining the compensation for the renewal of the mining claims. The court had to consider the weight of the material provided and the impact of mining and drought conditions on the value of the claims.

The court found that the Registrar had properly considered the relevant factors in determining the compensation. The court held that the Registrar had considered the weight of the material provided and the impact of mining and drought conditions on the value of the claims. The court also held that the Registrar had not erred in determining the compensation. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Registrar's decision.

The court ordered that Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink pay compensation of $225 in respect of the renewal of mining claim MC60049. The court also ordered that Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink pay compensation of $4100 in respect of the renewal of mining claim MC60301.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of MC60049 compensation is determined in an amount of $45 per annum in respect of the renewal period of 5 years, giving a total amount of $225.

2. That Bernardus Johannes Maria Stoverink

pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 within one month from notification of the renewal of the mining claim by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

3. In respect of MC60301 compensation is determined in an amount of $410 per annum in respect of the renewal period of 10 years, giving a total amount of $4100.

4. That Antonius Gerhardus Albertus Stoverink

pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in order 3 within four months from notification of the renewal of the mining claim by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

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.