Brown v Struber [2017] QLC 34
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Brown v Struber & Anor [2017] QLC 34
PARTIES: Stephen John Brown
(applicant)
v
Stephen Roy Struber and Dianne Rose Wilson-Struber
(respondents)
FILE NO/s: MRA097-17
DIVISION: General Division
PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for grant of mining lease.
DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2017
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD ON: Submissions closed 8 June 2017.
HEARD AT: Heard on the papers.
JUDICIAL
REGISTRAR: GJ Smith
ORDER/S: 1. In respect of ML 100088 compensation is determined
in the sum of $121.00 per annum.
2. The miner pay compensation to the Public Trustee of
Queensland on behalf of the landowners the amount
set out in order 1 within three months from
notification of the issue of the mining lease by the
Department of Natural Resources and Mines and
thereafter on the anniversary of the grant of the
mining lease.
CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – referral – grant – determination of
compensation – compensation statement – absence of expert
evidence – use of Court judgments for determination
purposes – Public Trustee of Queensland.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 279, s 281
Public Trustee Act 1978, Part 7
Brown v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 53
Brown v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 54
Fitzgerald & Ors v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC 76
Fitzgerald v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 6
Kelly v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 7
Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (No.2) (1998) 19 QLCR 297
APPEARANCES: Not applicable.
[1] These proceedings concern a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive,
Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 281(1) of the
Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in
respect of the grant of Mining Lease ML 100088.
Background
[2] Stephen John Brown (the miner) seeks the grant of Mining Lease 100088 on land
commonly known as Palmerville Station and more particularly described as Lot 14
on SP 250040. Palmerville Station is owned by the respondents Stephen Struber
and Dianne Wilson-Struber (the landowners).
[3] The Mining Lease Area comprises of 6.936 ha together with an access track which
covers an area of which covers 7.99 ha. The Court reference and the tenure details
are set out below:
Court Reference Tenure ID Mining
Area
Access
Area
Term Purpose
MRA097-17 ML 100088 6.936 ha 7.99 ha 10 years Gold
Relevant Legislation
[4] Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or
renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the
absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by
the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the
matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.
-- 2 of 5 --
3
[1] Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court
when determining compensation. In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of
land is entitled to compensation for:
(i) deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;
(ii) diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any
improvements thereon;
(iii) diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of
the owner or any improvements thereon;
(iv) severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from
other land of the owner;
(v) any surface rights of access;
(vi) all loss or expense that arises;
as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease.
[5] Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation
determination. In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as
follows:
(4) In assessing the amount of compensation payable under
subsection (3)—
…
(e) an additional amount shall be determined to reflect the
compulsory nature of action taken under this part which
amount
...
shall be not less than 10% of the aggregate amount
determined under subsection (3).
[6] The assessment to be undertaken in accordance with s 281 was discussed in Wills v
Minerva Coal Pty Ltd (No.2)1 as follows:
“It is beyond question as I have written above that the primary source of
law is the statute under consideration and it seems to me that the learned
Member acknowledged this when he said:
‘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.’
Section 281 MRA neither prescribes nor suggests a method of assessment
or valuation either. The selection of an appropriate method is a matter for
the relevant expert, however, there is one warning that I should post. If the
expert was to approach the assessment of compensation by simply
accumulating figures assessed independently under each of the items listed
in s.281(3)(a)(i) to (vi) and without regard to the prospect of a matter being
dealt with under more than one item, the chance that there will be a
duplication of items assessed will be high.”
1 (1998) 19 QLCR 297 page 315.
-- 3 of 5 --
4
The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence
[7] A Deputy Registrar of the Land Court wrote to the parties on 6 April 2017 to detail
the Court process for the determination of compensation and to confirm dates for
the filing of the evidence and materials that might be relied upon.
[8] A compensation statement and related submissions were filed in the registry by the
miner on 8 May 2017. No evidence or submissions have been filed by or on behalf
of the landowners.
[9] A summary of the submissions relied upon by the miners is set out as follows:
i. Mining will be small scale with no greater than two employees.
ii. Disturbance will be kept to 0.5 ha with progressive rehabilitation.
iii. Current use is low intensity grazing with minimal carrying capacity.
iv. Miner is conscious of avoiding interference with the business of the station
and will respect the movement of cattle within mining and access areas.
v. Suggests that compensation be assessed at $10.00 per hectare per annum in
respect of mining areas and $5.00 per hectare per annum in respect of access
areas on the basis of recent Land Court determinations2 and the earlier
contested proceeding Fitzgerald & Anor v Struber & Anor [2009] QLC 76.
Determination
[10] In circumstances where no expert evidence has been filed by either party and no
evidence whatsoever by the landowners, I consider the most appropriate approach is
to rely on recent determinations of this Court made in relation to mining activities
carried out within Palmerville Station. The recent determinations3 cited by the
miner were all guided to some extent by the decision in Fitzgerald, a decision which
resulted from a contested hearing involving expert evidence and inspection of
Palmerville Station. It is on this basis that I am prepared to accept the rates of
compensation contended for by the miner for the purposes of this determination.
[11] For the purposes of assessment the access and mining areas have been rounded to
the next full hectare. The calculations for each determination are set out as follows:
2 Brown v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 53; Brown v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 54; Fitzgerald v
Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 6; Kelly v Struber & Anor [2016] QLC 7.
3 Ibid.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
MRA097-17 re ML 100088
Area covered by mining lease – 7 ha @ $ 10 per ha = $ 70.00 per annum
Area covered by mining access – 8 ha @ $ 5 per ha = $ 40.00 per annum
add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant = $ 11.00 per annum
Total = $121.00 per annum
[12] A period of imprisonment is currently being served by both landholders and as a
result I intend to order that the compensation determined be paid to the Public
Trustee of Queensland.4
ORDERS
1. In respect of ML 100088 compensation is determined in the sum of $121.00 per
annum.
2. The miner pay compensation to the Public Trustee of Queensland on behalf of
the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within three months from
notification of the issue of the mining lease by the Department of Natural
Resources and Mines and thereafter on the anniversary of the grant of the
mining lease.
GJ SMITH
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR OF THE LAND COURT
4 Public Trustee Act 1978, Part 7.
-- 5 of 5 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QLC/2017/034