Taylor v Allen

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Taylor v Allen [2016] QLC 52
PARTIES: Andrew John Taylor
(applicant)

v

Ian John Allen

(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA089-16
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for grant of a mining claim.
DELIVERED ON: 6 September 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 16 May 2016
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDERS:

1.     Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330).

2.     The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the grant of Mining Claim 300019 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING CLAIM – grant – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – no material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 85 (12)
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Kaljevic v Mills & Anor [2010] QLC 124

Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (Unreported, Land Court of Queensland, JJ Trickett, President, 10 March 1998)
Tully v Colac Cable Harvesting Pty Ltd [2015] QLC 35
Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

  1. This matter involves a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 85(12) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the grant of mining claim 300019 (MC 300019).

Background

  1. The applicant, Andrew John Taylor (the miner) has applied for the grant of MC 300019 over land located approximately 90 kilometres south of Isisford in the Winton District. The land is within the Longreach Regional Council local government area. The grant is sought for a period of 10 years.  The purpose of the claim is for the mining of opal.

  2. The relevant area concerns an access track approximately 4.88 ha in area across land owned by Ian John Allen (the landowner). The land is more particularly described as Lot 1934 on PH848 and is used for grazing by the respondent.

Relevant Legislation

  1. Section 85 of the MRA provides that a mining claim shall not be granted or renewed unless compensation has been determined (whether by agreement or by determination of the Land Court) between the applicant and each person who is the owner of land the subject of the application and of any surface access to that land. In respect of this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and accordingly the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

  2. The matters that must be considered by the Court are set out in s 85(7) of the MRA which provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

    (a)   deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;
    (b)   diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (c)   diminution of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Taylor v Allen 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 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taylor, the plaintiff, sought to determine the compensation owed to Allen, the defendant, for the grant of a mining claim. The matter was heard in the Queensland District Court. The dispute centred around the compensation to be paid under section 12 of the Mining Act 1978 for the grant of a mining claim. The primary issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate compensation to be paid for the grant of Mining Claim 300019, considering the absence of any material provided by either party.

In considering the compensation, the court noted the absence of any submissions or material from either party. The court was tasked with making a decision based on the statutory provisions and any relevant case law. Given the lack of evidence, the court applied the statutory framework and made a determination based on the statutory provisions and its own assessment. The court found that the appropriate compensation for the grant of the mining claim was Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330).

The court ordered that the compensation be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within three months of the grant of the mining claim by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The court's decision was made in the absence of any material from either party, relying on the statutory framework to arrive at the compensation amount. The court's orders were clear and concise, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute over the compensation for the mining claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of Three Hundred and Thirty Dollars ($330).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the grant of Mining Claim 300019 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.