Tully v Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd

The case of Tully v Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd involved Bruce Cameron Tully, the holder of Mining Lease 6040, and Rayment Pastoral Holding Pty Ltd, the landholder over which the mining lease was located. The dispute centred on the determination of compensation payable by Tully to Rayment for the renewal of the mining lease. The matter was heard by the Land Court of Queensland, specifically by Mr BR O’Connor, the Judicial Registrar. The primary issue for the court was to determine the amount of compensation that should be paid by the miner to the landholder under the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

The court was required to consider the various heads of compensation outlined in s.281(3) of the Act, which included compensation for land use, surface disturbance, and any other relevant factors. Given that there was no detailed evidence submitted by either party regarding the specifics of the area of land required for access or other compensatory elements, the court had to rely on general principles and precedents. The Judicial Registrar adopted the approach set forth in the decision of Re Wallace & Ors & Evans, where the compensation for access was calculated at a minimal rate per hectare per annum. The court determined that compensation for access should be $5 per hectare per annum for the 21-year term of the lease, amounting to $630. Additionally, a sum of $50 was awarded for other compensatory elements, and an additional $70 was awarded pursuant to s.281(4)(e) of the Act.

The court concluded that the total compensation payable by Tully to Rayment should be $750. The compensation was to be paid by the miner within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to court practice directions and the necessity of providing detailed evidence in compensation matters to facilitate a fair and accurate determination.