Valantine v Henry

Case [2018] QLC 21


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Valantine v Henry  [2018] QLC 21
PARTIES:

 Lois Maree Valantine
(applicant)

v

Thomas Peter Henry
(respondent) 

FILE NO: MRA007-17
DIVISION: General division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 17 August 2018
DELIVERED AT: On the papers
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 17 November 2017
Matter allocated 19 March 2018
HEARD AT: Brisbane
MEMBER: PA Smith
ORDERS:

1.   Compensation is determined for the grant of MLA 100020 in the total sum of Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000)

2.   Ms Valentine is ordered to pay Mr Henry the sum of $20,000 by way of yearly instalments of $1,000, the first instalment to be paid within 1 month of the grant of MLA 100020 and the further instalments yearly thereafter for the 20 year term of the lease.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – COMPENSATION – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION – compensation amount – factors to be considered – value of land – area of mining lease – severance – land use – access – area of mining lease
MINING LEASE – COMPENSATION -  exclusive possession – landholder rights – landholder right of entry and access to mining lease area – whether miner may exclude landholder from mining lease area

EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULINGS AND FINDINGS – whether evidence speculative, argumentative or relevant – Land Court not bound by rules of evidence

EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULINGS AND FINDINGS – evidence of things said in a without prejudice preliminary conference – whether evidence should be excluded

Land Court Act 2000, s 7
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 235, s 279, s 281, s 403

Barrett v Weir and Gregcarbil Pty Ltd [2009] QLC 182, applied
Carabella Resources Limited v Goodwin [2016] QLC 32, applied
ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLAC 4, considered
ERO Georgetown Gold Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLC 22, applied
Henry  v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd [2015] QLC 13, applied
Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26, followed
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (1998) 19 QLCR 66, applied
North Queensland Mining Pty Ltd  v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 4, applied
Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89, applied  
Salmon v Armstrong [2002] QLRT 54, followed
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, applied
Smith v Cameron (1986) 11 QLCR 64, applied
Valentine v Etheridge Shire Council [2016] QLC 55, applied
Zapponi v Struber & Anor [2010] QLC 67, applied

APPEARANCES:     Not applicable

Background

  1. The applicant miner Ms Valantine has applied for Mining Lease 100020 (MLA 100020). MLA 100020 is situated on Lot 2 GB 110 and known as ‘Flat Creek Station’ (Lot 2). Lot 2 is located approximately 28 kilometres south, south-west of Georgetown and is 13,800 ha in size and is used for grazing, cattle breeding, and fattening, and has a carrying capacity of approximately 1,380 adult equivalent (AE) beasts. Lot 2 is adequately equipped with bores, tanks and…

Continue reading Valantine v Henry

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Valantine v Henry [2018] QLC 21
Case
[2018] QLC 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Valantine v Henry case involved a dispute between Ms Valantine and Mr Henry concerning the compensation to be paid for the grant of a mining lease. The matter was heard by the Land Court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate compensation amount. This included considering factors such as the value of the land, the area covered by the mining lease, severance, land use, and access. Additionally, the court examined the rights of the landholder, including the landholder's right of entry and access to the mining lease area and whether the miner could exclude the landholder from the mining lease area.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included the relevance and admissibility of evidence presented by both parties. This involved evaluating whether the evidence was speculative, argumentative, or relevant. The court also needed to decide if it should consider evidence of statements made during a without prejudice preliminary conference. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the evidence adhered to the rules of evidence or if it was bound by such rules.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the compensation for the mining lease should be set at Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000). The court found that the evidence presented was relevant and should be considered, even if it did not strictly adhere to traditional rules of evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that evidence from the without prejudice conference should be excluded from its considerations. The compensation was to be paid by Ms Valantine to Mr Henry in yearly instalments of $1,000, with the first instalment due within a month of the grant of the mining lease and subsequent instalments to be paid annually for the 20-year term of the lease.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined for the grant of MLA 100020 in the total sum of Twenty Thousand dollars ($20,000)

2. Ms Valentine is ordered to pay Mr Henry the sum of $20,000 by way of yearly instalments of $1,000, the first instalment to be paid within 1 month of the grant of MLA 100020 and the further instalments yearly thereafter for the 20 year term of the lease.

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.