Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2026] QLC 1

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2026] QLC 1 PARTIES: Wolfgang Deimel (applicant) v Mark Phelps and Christine Phelps (respondents) FILE NO: MRA275-25 PROCEEDING: General application DELIVERED ON: Orders delivered ex tempore 19 February 2026 Reasons delivered 4 March 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 19 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM ORDER: 1. The application is dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: ENERGY AND RESOURCES ‒ MINERALS ‒ MINING FOR MINERALS ‒ where a mining lease was granted over land for the purpose of gold mining – where the Respondents have refused to accept surrender of the lease ‒ whether the miner’s past efforts to rehabilitate mined land had been sufficient – where there are feral animals on the land APPEARANCES: W Deimel, the applicant (self-represented) M Phelps, the respondent (self-represented) [1] Wolfgang Deimel has a mining lease on a property owned by Mark and Christine Phelps. He has been mining gold there for about 20 years. [2] The relationship between the parties has not been smooth sailing. In 2025, they executed a deed of agreement about Mr Deimel’s responsibilities to rehabilitate the lease. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [3] Mr Deimel has applied for a final surrender of the lease. The Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation has refused to accept the surrender, as has Mr Phelps. [4] Mr Deimel says that Mr Phelps is in breach of his obligations under the deed of settlement (the Deed) and he wants me to compel the Phelps’ to comply with the agreement. [5] Mr Deimel concedes that the land has not been rehabilitated, but he said that this is solely because of overgrazing by feral and native animals. He says that: (a) goats are stripping grasses down to bare soil and damaging shrubs; (b) he does not want to invest more time and money into rehabilitation because he has run out of local grass seed; (c) there is no use in applying fertiliser if feral goats are not controlled; (d) the Phelps’ suggestion of installing temporary fencing is not viable because: (e) it will not exclude goats; (f) the cost is prohibitive; (g) a temporary fence will breach the court’s earlier determination; (h) he would have to cease employment and would have no income to manage the fence; and (i) controlling the goats with firearms is not viable because: (j) mustering the goats requires a licence, and he is not permitted to cross the lease boundary; and (k) the goats are not interested in old vegetative growth. They walk past it to graze on the green pick. [6] Mr Deimel contends that the Phelps’ are responsible for controlling the feral goats. [7] Mr Phelps says that: (a) water storage dams created by Mr Deimel’s mining attracts the feral goats; (b) there are inadequate erosion control measures and this has resulted in sediment in tributary of the Macintyre Brook; and (c) fencing the lease is contrary to the compensation agreement. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [8] Mr Phelps has agreed to temporary fencing subject to certain conditions: (a) Details of the material of the fencing; (b) A map showing its location through GPS coordinates; (c) Contact details for the contractor; (d) A bond to secure compliance; and (e) A deadline to secure compliance. [9] Mr Phelps says that the Phelps’ have met their biosecurity obligations regarding the goats through bi-annual mustering, trapping, baiting, professional and recreational shooters and exclusion fences. [10] Both parties refer to a decision of the Land Court, that being Deimel v Phelps [2019] QLC 4. Mr Deimel refers to paragraph 33. Mr Phelps refers to paragraph 51. [11] In both of those paragraphs, the court has referred to the state of the mining lease and the fact that it is not fenced. Neither of those paragraphs prohibits the fencing of the lease. They simply reflect the position at the time the decision was made. [12] I heard evidence about the effects of feral goats on Mr Deimel’s ability to rehabilitate the lease. For the reasons that follow, I do not need to make any findings about that. [13] The resolution of Mr Deimel’s application to the court depends upon the construction of the Deed. Under clause 2(b)(i), Mr Deimel must: [R]ehabilitate the land to the satisfaction of the relevant Queensland department (currently the Department of Environment and Science) and Mark, acting reasonably. [14] Mr Deimel says two things. Firstly, that Mr Phelps does not have to be satisfied about the rehabilitation and secondly, Mr Phelps must act reasonably in assisting Mr Deimel to achieve the rehabilitation. [15] The first submission is clearly incorrect. The Deed specifically contemplates that Mr Phelps needs to be satisfied that rehabilitation is complete. [16] The second submission is also misconceived. Clause 2(b)(i) does not require Mr Phelps to assist in the rehabilitation. All he has to do is not act unreasonably in refusing to agree that the rehabilitation is complete. [17] Everyone agrees that the rehabilitation is not complete. So Mr Phelps’ refusal in this case is clearly reasonable. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [18] Clause 2(f) states that: Mark must facilitate Wolfgang’s surrender of the [lease] ... [19] Once again, this does not mean that Mr Phelps must help Mr Deimel rehabilitate the land for three reasons. Firstly, the obligation to facilitate the surrender is subject to the “completion of the clause 2 obligations”. Secondly, Mr Phelps must receive evidence that the relevant department is satisfied that the land has been rehabilitated. Thirdly, Mr Phelps must have received evidence that the disturbed land has been rehabilitated. [20] None of these things has occurred. Mr Phelps is not in breach of his obligations under the Deed. [21] Therefore, Mr Deimel’s application is dismissed with costs. Orders 1. The application is dismissed with costs. -- 4 of 4 --