Washington v Skelton - [2021] QLC 11

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11

PARTIES: Michael Wade Washington
(applicant)

v

Christopher Skelton
(respondent)

FILE NO: MRA120-20

DIVISION:
General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 17 March 2021

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 29 January 2021

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
I determine:

1.   Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($550) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim;

2.   the cost of one inspection per year as a 5-hour round trip in the sum of Four Hundred and Forty Dollars ($440) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI; and

3.   if Mr Washington does not maintain the access track and Mr Skelton incurs that expense, one third of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance within 28 days of presentation of an invoice.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant owned a mining lease situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85

Agnew v DWAJ Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 14, cited
Valantine v Henry [2018] QLC 21, cited

APPEARANCES:

Not applicable

Michael Wade Washington has in principle approval for a 10-year mining claim (MC 300270) (“MC”) on Elvo Station, located 150 km south west of Winton. He wants to mine for opal. The MC covers an area of 5.19 ha wholly within Lot 2148 on SP262009. Access to the MC is via a 25 km track from the Winton Jundah Road.

Christopher Skelton owns Lot 2148.[1] He also owns five adjoining properties. These six properties have an area of approximately 700,000 acres. That is about 283,280 ha. Mr Skelton runs cattle across his properties. He uses Mt Elvo to grow weaners before transferring them to better country to fatten.
[1]Mr Skelton is the lessee of a registered rolling term pastoral lease.

Mr Washington must pay Mr Skelton compensation for the MC but the parties cannot agree on the amount. I must determine compensation pursuant to s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

Deprivation of possession of the surface of the land: s 85(5)(a)

The term of the MC is 10 years. Mr Washington does not propose to fence the MC,[2] and he does not intend to limit Mr Skelton’s access to the MC. This means that much of the claim will still be available to cattle. Correctly, Mr Skelton does not claim that he will be deprived of possession of the land. I determine no compensation is payable under this head.

[2]Compensation Statement of Michael Wade Washington (Applicant), 29 October 2020, 1.

Diminution of the value of the land: s 85(5)(b)

Mr Washington’s application for the MC shows that it encompasses…

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.

Continue reading Washington v Skelton

Details

AGLC: Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11
Case: [2021] QLC 11
Decision Date: 17 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Washington v Skelton involved a dispute between the parties over compensation payable under section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. Washington was the owner of a mining lease on land belonging to Skelton. The dispute arose from the compulsory acquisition of part of the lease for mining purposes. The court was tasked with determining whether compensation was payable and, if so, the amount.

The primary legal issue was whether compensation was payable under section 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for the diminution of use of Skelton's land due to the mining activities. The court had to consider the extent of the land affected, the nature of the use of the land, and the appropriate compensation for the compulsory acquisition.

The court concluded that compensation was payable and determined the amount. The court awarded a lump sum of Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($550) representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land, with a 10% adjustment reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim. Additionally, the court ordered that the cost of one inspection per year, amounting to Four Hundred and Forty Dollars ($440) including a 10% adjustment, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), was to be paid. The court also stipulated that if Washington did not maintain the access track and Skelton incurred that expense, one third of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance would be payable within 28 days of presentation of an invoice.

The final orders included the payment of the lump sum and inspection costs, along with the condition for track maintenance costs if applicable.

Orders

Orders of the court

I determine:

1. Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($550) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim;

2. the cost of one inspection per year as a 5-hour round trip in the sum of Four Hundred and Forty Dollars ($440) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI; and

3. if Mr Washington does not maintain the access track and Mr Skelton incurs that expense, one third of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance within 28 days of presentation of an invoice.

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:	Washington v Skelton [2021] QLC 11
PARTIES:	Michael Wade Washington (applicant)
v
Christopher Skelton (respondent)
FILE NO:	MRA120-20
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	17 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 29 January 2021
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	I determine: 1. Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($550) paid as a lump sum representing the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land including 10% reflecting the compulsory nature of the mining claim; 2. the cost of one inspection per year as a 5-hour round trip in the sum of Four Hundred and Forty Dollars ($440) including 10%, indexed annually to CPI; and 3. if Mr Washington does not maintain the access track and Mr Skelton incurs that expense, one third of the cost of any reasonably necessary track maintenance within 28 days of presentation of an invoice.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant owned a mining lease situated on the land of the respondent – whether and, if so, what compensation was payable under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85 Agnew v DWAJ Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 14, cited Valantine v Henry [2018] QLC 21, cited
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable