Wilkins v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd - [2018] QLC 16

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Wilkins & Ors v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd [2018] QLC 16

PARTIES:
Maxwell John Wilkins, Robert James Wilkins & Russell Ross Wilkins
(applicants)

v

Auctus Resources Pty Ltd
(respondent)

FILE NOs: MRA716-17
MRA717-17

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 15 June 2018

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 27 April 2018

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe

ORDERS:
1.     For ML 4959 compensation is determined in the sum of $253.44 per annum.

2.     For ML 4957 compensation is determined in the sum of $47.52 per annum.

3.     The compensation will be paid by the applicants to the respondent in each case within one month of the renewal of the mining lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the renewal.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – material provided – value of land within the mining lease area – useable and unusable land

Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) ss 279, 281(3) and (4)

ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLC 22
Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber [2012] QLC 76
Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26

Reddicliffe v Dixon & Anor [2017] QLC 49
Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89
Shimrad Pty Ltd and Anor v Collins & Ors [2017] QLC 17

Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64
Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418

APPEARANCES:       Not applicable

The three Wilkins brothers, Maxwell, Robert and Russell want to renew two mining leases in far north Queensland but they cannot agree compensation with the landholder, Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (Auctus).

ML 4959, with an area of 15.86 ha, contains a processing plant, crushing and screening rock from the surrounding area. ML 4597, with an area of 2.99 ha is a limestone mine.

The mining leases are located within Lot 3 on SP 150971, which has an area of 208,000 ha. It is the largest part of ‘Chillagoe Station’ and is used for cattle breeding and fattening.

Section 281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA) sets out what Auctus can receive compensation for. Section 281(4) of the MRA gives additional compensation rights in particular circumstances. Section 281 does not define any method of assessment, and each case depends on its facts.[1] Further, it is not necessary to determine an amount for each head of compensation in s 281(3); they are matters to consider when deciding an overall amount.[2]
[1]Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64, 74-75.
[2]Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89, 9, 10, 4.

The overriding principle is of equivalence; ensuring that, so far as money can do it, Auctus is placed in the same position as if the mining leases were not granted.[3]
[3]Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26,…

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 Wilkins v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd 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: [2018] QLC 16
Decision Date: 15 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilkins v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the compensation to be paid for mining leases granted over certain parcels of land. The parties involved were Wilkins, the appellant, and Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred around the calculation of compensation for the renewal of two mining leases, ML 4959 and ML 4957. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was the calculation of compensation for the mining leases. The court needed to consider the relevant factors in determining the compensation, including the value of the land within the mining lease area, the useable and unusable land, and the material provided. The court was tasked with deciding how these factors should be balanced and applied in the context of the particular leases in question.

In determining the compensation, the court held that the primary consideration should be the value of the land within the mining lease area. The court emphasised that the compensation should be based on the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the leases were granted. The court noted that the compensation should be commensurate with the benefit obtained by the respondent from the mining activities. In applying these principles, the court determined that the compensation for ML 4959 was $253.44 per annum and for ML 4957 was $47.52 per annum. The court also ordered that the compensation be paid by the applicants to the respondent within one month of the renewal of the mining lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the renewal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For ML 4959 compensation is determined in the sum of $253.44 per annum.

2. For ML 4957 compensation is determined in the sum of $47.52 per annum.

3. The compensation will be paid by the applicants to the respondent in each case within one month of the renewal of the mining lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the renewal.

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:	Wilkins & Ors v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd [2018] QLC 16
PARTIES:	Maxwell John Wilkins, Robert James Wilkins & Russell Ross Wilkins (applicants) v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (respondent)
FILE NOs:	MRA716-17 MRA717-17
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	15 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 27 April 2018
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe
ORDERS:	1. For ML 4959 compensation is determined in the sum of $253.44 per annum. 2. For ML 4957 compensation is determined in the sum of $47.52 per annum. 3. The compensation will be paid by the applicants to the respondent in each case within one month of the renewal of the mining lease and in each subsequent year of the term of the lease on the anniversary of the date of the renewal.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – material provided – value of land within the mining lease area – useable and unusable land Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) ss 279, 281(3) and (4) ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLC 22 Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber [2012] QLC 76 Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 Reddicliffe v Dixon & Anor [2017] QLC 49 Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89 Shimrad Pty Ltd and Anor v Collins & Ors [2017] QLC 17 Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64 Spencer v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418