Unimin Australia Limited v State of Queensland

Unimin Australia Limited brought an action against the State of Queensland concerning the mining of silica sand in Queensland. Unimin mined silica sand for glass manufacturing, but also extracted a secondary product, B Grade silica sand, used in white mortars and renders. The central issue was whether B Grade silica sand is a "mineral" under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), and if its extraction constituted "mining for use for its chemical properties." The case also explored whether the B Grade silica sand was supplied merely as sand, and if so, whether property would pass to Unimin. The court examined the definition of "mineral" and the legislative intent behind the Mineral Resources Act, considering whether the secondary extraction of B Grade silica sand fell within the statutory definition of mining.

The court considered whether the B Grade silica sand met the definition of a mineral under the Act, focusing on whether it was extracted "for use for its chemical properties." It assessed whether the silica sand was merely supplied as sand or if it retained its mineral properties. The court examined the commercial purpose of the extraction and the nature of the silica sand's use in white mortars and renders, evaluating if it aligned with the legislative intent of the Act. The court also considered whether the extraction of B Grade silica sand constituted "mining" as defined in the Act, and if Unimin's operation was subject to the regulatory framework governing mineral extraction.

Ultimately, the court determined that B Grade silica sand did not meet the definition of a "mineral" under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), as it was not extracted primarily for its chemical properties. The court held that the silica sand was supplied for its use as sand, rather than for its intrinsic mineral qualities. Consequently, the extraction of B Grade silica sand did not constitute "mining" under the Act, and Unimin did not hold a property interest in the silica sand extracted. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory definition and the legislative intent behind the Act, ensuring that the extraction of secondary products was properly regulated under the mining framework.

The court ordered that the parties consult and submit minutes of order within seven days, with liberty to apply. This decision clarified the regulatory boundaries of mineral extraction under the Mineral Resources Act, emphasising the importance of the statutory definition of "mineral" and the legislative intent in determining the scope of mining activities.