LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Tully v Colac Cable Harvesting Pty Ltd [2015] QLC 35 PARTIES: Bruce Cameron Tully
(applicant)v Colac Cable Harvesting Pty Ltd
(respondent)FILE NO: MRA 076-15 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease DELIVERED ON: 28 August 2015 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 29 May 2015 HEARD AT: Heard on the papers JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith ORDERS: 1. 1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($1980.00).
2. 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 renewal of Mining Lease 7308 by Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - no material provided by either party.
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A
Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 0076
Kaljevic v Mills & Anor [2010] QLC 124APPEARANCES: Not applicable
This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.
Background
On 30 August 2012, Bruce Cameron Tully (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 7308 over land located approximately 23 kilometres south-east of Highland Holdings in the Winton District. The land is within the Longreach Regional Council local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 10 years. The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of opal.
The mining lease area of 14.9578 hectares and access track of 1.53 km is situated over land owned by Colac Cable Harvesting Pty Ltd (the respondent). The land is more particularly described as Lot 1 on CJ10 Gooyea Holding and is used for grazing by the respondent.
Relevant Legislation
Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.
Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:
(i)deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;
(ii)diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;
(iii)diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;
(iv)severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner;
(v)any…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tully v Colac Cable Harvesting Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] QLC 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court noted that the parties had not provided any evidence or submissions to assist in determining the compensation. Despite this, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation by considering the relevant statutory provisions and the general principles applicable to such cases. The primary legislation in question was the Mining Act 1992, which outlines the process for determining compensation for mining lease renewals. Under this legislation, the compensation is to be determined by the Tribunal based on the value of the mining rights and any other relevant factors. Given the absence of evidence, the Tribunal relied on the statutory presumption that the compensation should reflect the value of the mining rights at the time of renewal.
The Tribunal determined that the compensation payable for the renewal of Mining Lease 7308 was One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($1980.00). This determination was made based on the statutory presumption and the general principles applicable to such cases, in the absence of any evidence or submissions from the parties. The Tribunal ordered that the compensation be paid by the applicant to the respondent within three months of the renewal of the Mining Lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. This decision underscores the importance of providing evidence and submissions in such cases, as the lack of material can lead to a determination based on statutory presumptions and general principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. 1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($1980.00).
2. 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 renewal of Mining Lease 7308 by 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.