Alphadale Pty Ltd v Mann [2016] QLC 46

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Alphadale Pty Ltd v Mann [2016] QLC 46 PARTIES: Alphadale Pty Ltd (applicant) v Richard John Mann (respondent) FILE NO: MRA050-16 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of a mining lease DELIVERED ON: 15 August 2016 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 18 April 2016 HEARD AT: Heard on the papers JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: GJ Smith ORDERS: 1. In respect of ML 10168 compensation is determined in the total sum of $1600 for the renewal period of 10 years. 2. The miner pay compensation to the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within three months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – renewal – access – determination of compensation – use of Court judgments for determination purposes. Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 279A, 281 Alphadale Pty Ltd v Dore & Ors [2014] QLC 25 Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 APPEARANCES: Not applicable -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [1] This proceeding concerns a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of Mining Lease 10168. Background [2] The applicant, Alphadale Pty Ltd (the miner) seeks the renewal of a mining lease located on land described as Lot 1 on SP272205. The Mining Lease comprises a mining area of 18.09 ha and a 4.23 km access track across land owned by the respondent Richard John Mann (the landowner). [3] The property is located approximately 60 kilometres south-west of Greenvale in the Charters Towers Regional Council local government area and is used for grazing purposes. [4] The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows: Court Reference Tenure ID Area Term Lease Purpose MRA050-16 10168 18.09 ha 10 years Gold-Silver Relevant Legislation [5] 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. [6] 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.” -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [7] 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).” [8] The assessment to be undertaken in accordance with s 281 was discussed in Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd 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.” The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence [9] On 12 February 2016, the Land Court registry wrote to the parties setting out a timetable for the delivery of materials and submissions in accordance with Land Court Practice Direction No.6 of 2015. [10] On 1 March 2016 the Court received email correspondence from Sir Michael Curtain, Managing Director of Alphadale Pty Ltd dated 24 February 2016. This correspondence addressed various issues associated with ML 10168 such as background, dimensions, land use, nature of operations, topography and soil. [11] The correspondence contends for a determination for the renewal period of ML 10168 of $75 per hectare. The contended amounts are set out as follows: a. $1356.75 ($75 per ha x 18.08 ha) as a one off payment and; b. $135.67 (10% to reflect compulsory nature of process 281(4) (e) of the MRA) These contended amounts are based on a decision of this Court in Alphadale Pty Ltd v Dore and Ors [2014] QLC 25. 1 Wills v Minerva Coal Pty Ltd [No.2] (1998) 19 QLCR 297 at 315. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Determination [12] In the absence of other evidence or a submission to the contrary, I consider it appropriate to assess compensation by considering other relevant Court judgments within the local area that are likely to assist with the determination of compensation. The decision2 referred to in the preceding paragraph is certainly a relevant judgment that is of assistance in this case. [13] While I am prepared to accept the contended rate of $75 per ha in respect of the mining area, the overall determination should, in my view also include an additional allowance for an access area of .95 ha (rounded to 1 ha for calculation purposes). [14] Based on the earlier Court judgment3 my determination in respect of ML 10168 is set out as follows: Area covered by mining lease – 19 ha @ $75 per ha = $ 1425.00 Area covered by access – 1 ha @ $25 per ha = $ 25.00 add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant = $ 150.00 Total = $ 1600.00 ORDERS 1. In respect of ML 10168 compensation is determined in the total sum of $1600 for the renewal period of 10 years. 2. The miner pay compensation to the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within three months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. GJ SMITH JUDICIAL REGISTRAR 2 Alphadale Pty Ltd v Dore and Ors [2014] QLC 25. 3 Ibid -- 4 of 4 --