Tully v Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd
[2009] QLC 161
•11 November 2009
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Tully v Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 0161
PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease No 6039 – Determination of compensation payable by Bruce Cameron Tully to Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd
FILE NO:MRA210-09
PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2009
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER/S:1. Compensation determined at $4,910.
2. The miner pay the total compensation of $4,910 to the landholder within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s.281
Re Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93, applied
APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers
Background
Bruce Cameron Tully (the miner) currently holds Mining Lease 6039 (area 42 ha) with expiry date 31 December 2008. On 19 December 2008 the miner lodged an application for a renewal of the mining lease for a term of 21 years with the Mining Registrar, Winton District.
This determination of compensation relates to the mining lease itself and access to the mining lease over a property owned by Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd.
Court Practice Direction
On 29 May 2009 the Court sent letters to the miner and the landholder bringing the referral of this matter to the Court by the Mining Registrar to their attention and advising them of their obligations under Court Practice Direction. Timeframes for the submission of relevant material were provided to each party. Only the landholder has made submissions to the Court. However, those submissions relate to the issue of renewal of the lease rather than compensation. The Court has no jurisdiction to rule on these matters on a renewal application. Such should be raised with the local Mining Registrar.
It is not an uncommon occurrence for either or both parties in a compensation matter before the Court to fail to comply with Court Practice Direction. The absence of detailed, or any, compensation evidence clearly makes the task of the Court in determining compensation very difficult. In the circumstances, I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in Re Wallace & Ors & Evans.[1]
Determination
[1] [2006] QLRT 93.
Taking into account all heads of compensation in s.281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) and absent any details of the area of land required for access, I assess compensation for access in the minimal sum of $5 per hectare per annum for the term of the lease (21 years), which equates to $4,410. I award a further $50 for access compensation. Pursuant to s.281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $450.
Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $4,910 to the landholder within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0