Woels v Hicks - [2010] QLC 137

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Woels v Hicks [2010] QLC 0137

PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 2049 – Application by Maximillian Jason Woels for determination of compensation payable to Cameron Jeffrey Hicks
FILE NO:MRA100-10
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  9 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDER/S:1. I determine compensation under s.281 in the sum of $1,500.
2. I award an additional amount of $155 in accordance with s.281(4)(e).
3. I direct that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $1,700 (rounded) to the landowner within three months of notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
4. No order for costs.

CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989, S.279, 281

S.P White v Warner [2003] QLRT 40

Smith v Cameron [1986– 87] 11 QLCR
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd [1992–93] 14 QLCR

APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers

Background

The applicants Maximillian Jason Woels (the miner) seeks renewal of the grant of Mining Lease 2049 in the Emerald District. The applicants seek a term of 5 years. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar, Emerald on 29 June 2009.
The lease is located on Lot 19 on CLM694 GHFL3735A, Parish of Keilambete, County of Clermont. Access is through the same property. A grazing operation is conducted on the property. The lease is over a surface area of 14.5427 ha and is sought for the purpose of mining for gemstone, sapphire, zircon and corundum. For the purpose of this application I round off the area to 15 ha.

The Act

Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed at the office of the Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In this instance, no agreement has been lodged with the Registrar and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination.

The matters which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s.281 (3) of the Act. Although s.281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. In Smith v Cameron (1986) 11 QLCR. 64, the Land Court held at p.74…”
“The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. No doubt each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances but it seems to me that either method is open to the valuer.”

In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93)14 QLCR 139, the Court at p.146 said:
“the method of assessment remains a matter which will be governed by the facts and circumstances of each case in which event emphasis may shift…

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 Woels v Hicks

Details

AGLC: Woels v Hicks [2010] QLC 137
Case: [2010] QLC 137
Decision Date: 9 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Queensland, Woels v Hicks was a proceeding concerning the determination of compensation payable to Cameron Jeffrey Hicks for the renewal of Mining Lease No 2049. The applicant, Maximillian Jason Woels, sought the renewal of the mining lease for a period of five years over a surface area of 14.5427 hectares, which has been rounded off to 15 hectares for the purposes of this application. The lease is located on Lot 19 on CLM694 GHFL3735A, Parish of Keilambete, County of Clermont. The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the compensation payable to Hicks under Section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, given that no agreement in relation to compensation had been filed at the office of the Registrar.

The Court considered various factors in making its determination. It noted that Section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 sets out the matters to be considered in determining compensation, but does not prescribe a method of assessment. The Court referred to previous cases, such as Smith v Cameron and Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd, which held that the method of assessment remains a matter governed by the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court also considered the relatively small area involved, the lack of formal valuation evidence, and prior determinations and agreements for leases and claims in the Emerald area. Based on these factors, the Court determined compensation under Part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, and awarded $20 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, along with an additional sum of $50 for access, and $155 under s.281(4)(e) to reflect the compulsory nature of the action taken.

The Court further directed that the miner pay the total compensation in the sum of $1,700 (rounded) to the landowner within three months of notification of grant of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. The Court made no order for costs, as neither party sought an order for costs and it was not deemed appropriate in this matter.

Orders