Unimin Australia Limited v State of Queensland

The matter before the court was an appeal by Unimin Australia Limited against a decision of the primary judge in the Queensland Land Court. Unimin Australia Limited is a company that operates sand mining activities on North Stradbroke Island under mining leases issued under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The company extracts silica sand from the sand mined, primarily for use in glass manufacturing. In the course of its operations, Unimin also extracts lower purity silica sand, which is sold for use in specialty white mortar and white renders. The primary judge had ruled that the lower purity silica sand was not a "mineral" within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), and Unimin appealed this determination. The central legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in concluding that the lower grade silica sand was not a "mineral" as defined in the Act, and whether the lower purity silica sand was "mined" for use in mortars or renders. The court also needed to determine whether the use of silica sand in mortars and renders constituted a "use for chemical properties" as defined in the Act, and whether the relevant provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) should be construed in favour of holders of mining tenements.

The court held that the primary judge had not erred in his determination that the lower purity silica sand was not a "mineral" within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld). The court found that the primary judge's interpretation of the statutory definition of "mineral" was consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and with the purpose of the Act. The court also held that the primary judge had not erred in concluding that the lower purity silica sand was "mined" for use in mortars or renders, as this was a reasonable interpretation of the facts. The court found that the use of silica sand in mortars and renders did not constitute a "use for chemical properties" within the meaning of the Act, as this term referred to the intrinsic chemical properties of the substance rather than its use in a particular application. Finally, the court held that the relevant provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) should not be construed in favour of holders of mining tenements, as this would defeat the purpose of the Act and undermine the regulatory framework established by the legislature.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including any reserved costs to be assessed. The decision of the primary judge was affirmed, and Unimin's appeal was unsuccessful. The lower purity silica sand extracted by Unimin was not a "mineral" within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), and the primary judge's interpretation of the statutory definition of "mineral" was consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term and with the purpose of the Act. The lower purity silica sand was "mined" for use in mortars or renders, and its use in these applications did not constitute a "use for chemical properties" within the meaning of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) should not be construed in favour of holders of mining tenements, as this would defeat the purpose of the Act and undermine the regulatory framework established by the legislature.