Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] - [1998] QLC 149

[1998] QLC 149

LAND COURT

BRISBANE

27 NOVEMBER 1998

In the matter of an appeal against the determination of the Mining Warden's Court, Emerald, of compensation payable in terms of Section 282 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 in respect of Mining Lease No. 70145 in the Emerald Mining District. (A97-63)

Michael J Wills
Appellant
v.
Minerva Coal Pty Ltd
Respondent

J U D G M E N T

On 3 September 1996 the respondent made application under Part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (referred to hereafter as the MRA) for a mining lease for the purpose of conducting an open-cut coal mine. The lease application area covered 930.75 ha of the appellant's land and sought a lease term of 30 years. The application was considered by the Wardens Court as required by the provisions of the MRA and it was recommended to the relevant Minister that the application for lease be approved subject to compensation being settled by the parties or determined by the relevant Court: a proviso contained in s.279 MRA. The parties failed to reach a settlement and the matter of compensation therefore came before the Wardens Court. That Court determined compensation under all heads in the amount of $941,813 made up as follows:
           Diminution in value of land and structures  $807,000
           Costs of acquiring replacement land  $20,123
           Legal fees  $5,691
           Valuation fees  $23,380
  $856,194
           Plus 10% "additional amount"  $85,619
           Total  $941,813

It is from that determination that Michael John Wills appeals to this Court on the following grounds:
1. The Warden erred in holding that the potential of land could not be taken into account in the determination of compensation under Section 281.
2. The Warden erred in holding the family history or family connection could not be taken into account in the determination of compensation under Section 281.
3. The Warden erred in holding that the appellant's preparations for irrigation of his property 'Lexington' was not a use of the property, within the meaning of section 281 of the Act, and/or in holding that such potential and such preparations could not be taken into account in determining compensation under Section 281.
4. The Warden erred in holding that the Valuer, Mr Compton's break up of various uses of various classes of land over a variety of tenures was of assistance in determining compensation under Section 281.
5. The Warden erred in rejecting as not relevant a comparable sale contended for by the appellant's valuer Mr Todd that was some years old, and/or in holding that he could not take into account in relation to the market value a sale from some years ago.
6. The Warden erred in not placing any weight on prior 'mining sales'.
7. The Warden erred in holding that, in relation to the issue of the purchase of replacement land, there were too many possibilities and variables to arrive at any definite outcome, and in not granting any compensation in relation thereto.
8. The Warden erred in…

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 Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] 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: [1998] QLC 149
Decision Date: 27 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael John Wills appeals against the determination of compensation payable under Section 282 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 in respect of Mining Lease No. 70145 in the Emerald Mining District. The respondent, Minerva Coal Pty Ltd, made an application for a mining lease on Wills' land, covering 930.75 ha of his property. The Wardens Court determined compensation to be $941,813, which Wills contests on several grounds. The Land Court must consider the things relevant to the appeal that the Wardens Court was required to consider when making the decision appealed against. The Court must consider the evidence and law, and submit how the result should be changed. The Land Court may vary the determination of the Wardens Court or disallow the appeal and confirm the determination of the Wardens Court, and may make such order as to costs of the appeal as it thinks fit. The determination of the Land Court on appeal shall be final and conclusive. The Land Court has decided to allow the appeal and determine compensation as follows: Value of land, severance and injurious affection $895,000; Valuation fees $23,380; Legal fees $5,091; Costs of acquiring replacement land $25,000; Plus additional amount. The Court also invites submissions on the question of its jurisdiction to determine the additional amount under s.281(4)(e) MRA by having regard to the conclusions that it has drawn with respect to exposure to a CGT assessment. Furthermore, the Court invites submissions on the form that final orders should take.

Orders