Vymetal v Inverardi - [2024] QLC 20

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 20

PARTIES:
Lukas Vymetal
(applicant)

v

Vic & Mary Inverardi
(active party objectors)

FILE NO:
MRA540-23

PROCEEDING: Referral of mining claim application and objections

DELIVERED ON: 4 October 2024

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 4 September 2024

HEARD AT: Atherton

MEMBER: JR McNamara

ORDERS:
I recommend to the Minister for Resources, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), that MC300441 be granted, provided that conditions consistent with Orders 2 – 5 are included;1.

The holder of MC300441 must use existing access points, roads or tracks to enter the landholder’s land, unless alternative access is negotiated with the landholder;2.

The holder of MC300441 must use the landholder’s land in a way that minimises disturbance to people, livestock and property;3.

If in carrying out activities associated with MC300441, the holder of MC300441 becomes aware of any potential adverse impact, caused by the activities, on the landholder’s livestock or property, they must immediately notify the landholder of the potential impact; 4.

The holder of MC300441 must, after using a gate on the landholder’s land, return the gate to its original position unless advised otherwise by the landholder. 5.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where the applicant applied for the grant of two mining claims – where hand-mining is proposed on mining claims – where the respondents lodged objections to
the grant of the mining claims – where the objectors are pastoralists who also operate a small-scale tourist operation near to the location of the mining claims – where the mining
claim application areas are in a watercourse – where access
to the mining claims will traverse the objectors’ land

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where objection raised concerning environmental impacts in and around the claim areas caused by proposed mining activity – where objections referred to Land Court for determinations under s 72 of Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) – where Court considers conditions pursuant to s 81 MRA – whether applicant has complied with Chapter 3 MRA ‘Mining claims’ – where environmental authority condition concerning water turbidity caused by the mining activity considered

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where application of the Small-scale Mining Code considered – where application of the Land Access Code 2023 considered – where mandatory conditions of the Land Access Code 2023 do not apply – where court considers conditions of entry to manage impacts on landholder’s peaceable enjoyment and pastoral enterprise – where court considers current and prospective uses of the land – where conditions recommended to address impacts to landholder’s tourism operation

HUMAN RIGHTS – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the court considered human rights pursuant to s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (HRA) – where cultural rights of Aboriginal peoples considered when making recommendation for mining claim applications under the MRA – whether proposed mining activity would unreasonably…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vymetal v Inverardi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QLC 20
Decision Date: 4 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Vymetal v Inverardi, the applicant sought the grant of two mining claims, MC300441 and MC300442, for hand-mining in Queensland. The respondents, who are pastoralists and operate a small-scale tourist operation, lodged objections to the grant of the mining claims, citing potential adverse impacts on their operations and the environment. The mining claims are situated in a watercourse, raising concerns about access and environmental damage. The case was heard by a court tasked with balancing the applicant's rights under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) with the respondents' objections.

The court needed to decide whether the proposed mining activities would unreasonably interfere with the respondents' pastoral and tourist operations and whether the applicant's rights to mine outweighed the potential harm to the respondents. The court examined the specific conditions under which mining could occur and whether these conditions could mitigate any adverse impacts on the respondents' activities. The central issue was whether the mining claims could be granted while protecting the respondents' interests and the environment.

After thorough consideration, the court recommended that the mining claim MC300441 be granted, provided certain conditions were imposed. These conditions included using existing access points, minimising disturbance to the respondents' property, notifying the respondents of any potential adverse impacts, and maintaining the condition of gates on the landholder's property. The court found that with these conditions, the applicant's right to mine could be balanced with the respondents' concerns, leading to a recommendation for approval of the mining claim MC300441 under specified conditions. The court did not recommend the grant of MC300442 due to the respondents' objections.

Orders

Orders of the court

I recommend to the Minister for Resources, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), that MC300441 be granted, provided that conditions consistent with Orders 2 – 5 are included;1.

The holder of MC300441 must use existing access points, roads or tracks to enter the landholder’s land, unless alternative access is negotiated with the landholder;2.

The holder of MC300441 must use the landholder’s land in a way that minimises disturbance to people, livestock and property;3.

If in carrying out activities associated with MC300441, the holder of MC300441 becomes aware of any potential adverse impact, caused by the activities, on the landholder’s livestock or property, they must immediately notify the landholder of the potential impact; 4.

The holder of MC300441 must, after using a gate on the landholder’s land, return the gate to its original position unless advised otherwise by the landholder. 5.

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.

CITATION:	Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 20
PARTIES:	Lukas Vymetal (applicant) v Vic & Mary Inverardi (active party objectors)
FILE NO:	MRA540-23
PROCEEDING:	Referral of mining claim application and objections
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	4 September 2024
HEARD AT:	Atherton
MEMBER:	JR McNamara
ORDERS:	I recommend to the Minister for Resources, as the Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), that MC300441 be granted, provided that conditions consistent with Orders 2 – 5 are included;1. The holder of MC300441 must use existing access points, roads or tracks to enter the landholder’s land, unless alternative access is negotiated with the landholder;2. The holder of MC300441 must use the landholder’s land in a way that minimises disturbance to people, livestock and property;3. If in carrying out activities associated with MC300441, the holder of MC300441 becomes aware of any potential adverse impact, caused by the activities, on the landholder’s livestock or property, they must immediately notify the landholder of the potential impact; 4. The holder of MC300441 must, after using a gate on the landholder’s land, return the gate to its original position unless advised otherwise by the landholder. 5.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where the applicant applied for the grant of two mining claims – where hand-mining is proposed on mining claims – where the respondents lodged objections to the grant of the mining claims – where the objectors are pastoralists who also operate a small-scale tourist operation near to the location of the mining claims – where the mining claim application areas are in a watercourse – where access to the mining claims will traverse the objectors’ land ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where objection raised concerning environmental impacts in and around the claim areas caused by proposed mining activity – where objections referred to Land Court for determinations under s 72 of Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) – where Court considers conditions pursuant to s 81 MRA – whether applicant has complied with Chapter 3 MRA ‘Mining claims’ – where environmental authority condition concerning water turbidity caused by the mining activity considered ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – where application of the Small-scale Mining Code considered – where application of the Land Access Code 2023 considered – where mandatory conditions of the Land Access Code 2023 do not apply – where court considers conditions of entry to manage impacts on landholder’s peaceable enjoyment and pastoral enterprise – where court considers current and prospective uses of the land – where conditions recommended to address impacts to landholder’s tourism operation HUMAN RIGHTS – JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where the court considered human rights pursuant to s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (HRA) – where cultural rights of Aboriginal peoples considered when making recommendation for mining claim applications under the MRA – whether proposed mining activity would unreasonably…