Summerville v Skelton - [2022] QLC 7

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7

PARTIES:
Alison Summerville
(applicant)

v

Christopher Skelton
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA020-22

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for grant of mining claim

DELIVERED ON: 13 July 2022

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 30 June 2022

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: JR McNamara

ORDERS:
I determine:

1. Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($462.00) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim; and

2. The cost of one inspection per year as a one hour trip by one person annually in the sum of Fifty-Five Dollars ($55) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for a mining claim situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

Land Court Act 2000 s 7
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85

Bucholz & Ors v Great Mines Ltd & Charters Towers Mines NL (1987) 11 QLCR 269, 277-278, cited
GOTAP Pty Ltd v Skelton [2021] QLC 20, cited
Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd(No 2) [2020] QLC 43, cited

Lonergan & Anor v Friese [2020] QLAC 3, cited
Valentine v Henry [2018] QLC 21, cited

Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11, followed

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

Background

Alison Summerville is an opal miner. She holds a small mining claim (MC 3590) on a property owned by Chris Skelton. She has now applied for a mining claim (MC 300355) over a larger area which would subsume MC 3590. Before that new mining claim can be granted, compensation with Chris Skelton must be agreed or determined by the Land Court.[1]
[1]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85.

The area of the new mining claim is 14.79 ha.[2] It is approximately 146km south of Winton. The term applied for is 10 years.
[2]Originating Application Form 01A, Attachment 1 – MC 300355 Resource Authority Public Report.

The land is identified as Lot 2 on RK5. It is, or is part of, a property called Mayneside Station. It would appear from other matters before the Court[3] that Chris Skelton owned six adjoining properties in the region, an area of approximately 700,000 acres. There is a restricted area declaration (RA257) over the part of Mayneside which includes the area the subject of the mining claim application. RA257 is also seen in the maps attached to Ms Summerville’s compensation statement. The declaration confirms this an opal rich region and explains the number of mining lease, mining claim and exploration permits in the area.
[3]GOTAP v Skelton [2021] QLC 20; Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11.

Attached to Ms Summerville’s originating application were a number of documents including the Resource Authority…

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 Summerville v Skelton

Details

AGLC: Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7
Case: [2022] QLC 7
Decision Date: 13 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Summerville v Skelton involved the applicant, Summerville, seeking a mining claim on land owned by the respondent, Skelton. The dispute centred around the compensation payable under section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for the compulsory acquisition of the mining claim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with determining whether compensation was payable, and if so, the amount that should be awarded.

The primary legal issue for the court was to ascertain the compensation due to Skelton for the compulsory acquisition of a mining claim by Summerville. This required an interpretation of section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and an assessment of the diminution of the use of the land. The court needed to consider the specific circumstances of the land's use and the impact of the mining claim on that use. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate method of calculating the compensation, including whether a 10% adjustment for the compulsory nature of the acquisition was necessary.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that compensation was indeed payable. The court found that the diminution of the use of the land was quantifiable and set the lump sum compensation at Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($462.00), with a 10% adjustment to reflect the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Furthermore, the court determined that the cost of an annual inspection, calculated at Fifty-Five Dollars ($55) including a 10% adjustment, should be paid by Summerville to Skelton. The court indexed this amount annually to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The court's final orders were that Summerville was to pay Skelton Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($462.00) as a lump sum and Fifty-Five Dollars ($55) annually for an inspection trip, indexed to the CPI. These payments represented the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the mining claim under the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

Orders

Orders of the court

I determine:

1. Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($462.00) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim; and

2. The cost of one inspection per year as a one hour trip by one person annually in the sum of Fifty-Five Dollars ($55) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI.

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:	Summerville v Skelton [2022] QLC 7
PARTIES:	Alison Summerville (applicant) v Christopher Skelton (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA020-22
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for grant of mining claim
DELIVERED ON:	13 July 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 30 June 2022
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	JR McNamara
ORDERS:	I determine: 1. Four Hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($462.00) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim; and 2. The cost of one inspection per year as a one hour trip by one person annually in the sum of Fifty-Five Dollars ($55) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant had applied for a mining claim situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 Land Court Act 2000 s 7 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85 Bucholz & Ors v Great Mines Ltd & Charters Towers Mines NL (1987) 11 QLCR 269, 277-278, cited GOTAP Pty Ltd v Skelton [2021] QLC 20, cited Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd(No 2) [2020] QLC 43, cited Lonergan & Anor v Friese [2020] QLAC 3, cited Valentine v Henry [2018] QLC 21, cited Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11, followed
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable