Walker v Cook Shire Council

Case [2015] QLC 19


LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Walker v Cook Shire Council [2015] QLC 19
PARTIES: Donald Robin Walker
(applicant)
v
Cook Shire Council
(respondent)
FILE NO: MRA035-15
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for grant of mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 2 July 2015
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 26 March 2015
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers
MEMBER: GJ Smith, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:

1.    Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($1,290.00).

2.   The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the issue of Mining Lease 20654 by DNRM.

CATCHWORDS:

MINING LEASE – determination of compensation –renewal factors to be considered – no material provided by either party – use of judgments for determination purposes.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, r 36A

Donovan v Struber & Anor (2009) QLC 160
Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman (2007) QLC 0076
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23
Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15
Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73
Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

  1. This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the grant of a mining lease.

Background

  1. On 23 December 2009, Donald Robin Walker (the miner) applied for the issue of Mining Lease 20654 over land located approximately 100 km west south-west of Laura in the Mareeba District and within the Cook Shire local government area.  The term applied for is 20 years.  The purpose of the lease is for the mining of gold, silver, garnet, ilmenite, platinum, rare earths, rutile, xenotime and zircon.

  2. Mapping data provided by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that 5.85 ha of ML 20654 is located within a road reserve under the control of the Cook Shire Council (the respondent). 

Relevant Legislation

  1. Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

  2. Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

    “(i)  deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;

    (ii)  diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

    (iii) diminution of the use made or which may…

Continue reading Walker v Cook Shire Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Walker v Cook Shire Council [2015] QLC 19
Case
[2015] QLC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker v Cook Shire Council involved a dispute over the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease. The court had to consider various factors pertinent to the renewal and compensation for the mining lease 20654. Neither party provided any material to assist in the determination of compensation, which left the court to rely on precedents and legal principles. The primary legal issue was the appropriate method for determining the compensation for the renewal of a mining lease when no specific evidence or arguments were presented by either party.

The court examined previous judgments to ascertain a reasonable method for determining compensation. It was noted that the absence of material from either party complicated the process, but the court found that it could still reach a decision based on established legal principles and precedents. The court took into account the economic value of the mining lease, the duration for which it was renewed, and any other relevant factors that might affect its value. Ultimately, the court determined that the compensation should be set at a sum that reflected these considerations, despite the lack of specific evidence from the parties involved.

In concluding its judgment, the court ordered that the compensation for the renewal of the mining lease 20654 be set at One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($1,290.00). The court also mandated that the miner must pay this compensation to the council within three months of the issuance of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. This decision was made in the absence of any additional evidence from the parties, relying instead on established legal precedents to arrive at a fair and reasonable outcome.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($1,290.00).

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the issue of Mining Lease 20654 by DNRM.

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.