Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd v Power & Anor [2014] QLC 46

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd v Power & Anor [2014] QLC 46 PARTIES: Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd (applicant) v Ron Power and Neville Power (respondent) FILE NO: MRA172-13 DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: Submissions closed 23 October 2014 HEARD AT: Heard on the Papers MEMBER: WA Isdale ORDERS: 1. Compensation for ML 90015 is determined in the total sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). 2. The compensation shall be payable by the applicant to the respondent within one month of the renewal of the mining lease. CATCHWORDS: Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 281 MINING LEASE – determination of compensation – factors to be considered – lack of material from parties Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89 Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139 Smith v Cameron (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 APPEARANCES: Not applicable Background [1] The applicant miner applied for the renewal of Mining Lease (ML) 90015 which has an area of 4.14 ha of grazing land and is approximately 110 km south-west of Cloncurry. It is for gold and the ores of silver, copper and lead. The Mining Registrar had on 11 June 2013 referred the matter of compensation to the Land Court for determination as the parties had not provided a compensation agreement in a satisfactory form to the Mining Registrar. The Court has the benefit of the material provided to it by the Mining Registrar. [2] On 2 October 2014 the Court wrote to the parties advising that in terms of Rule 36A of the Land Court Rules 2000 the Court intended to proceed to determine the matter without a hearing unless there was, by 4.00pm on 23 October 2014, an objection in writing, with reasons. The parties were also advised in the letter that any further material or submissions in relation to the compensation should be forwarded by them to the Land Court by that same date. [3] Mr Ron Power has sent an e-mail to the Court stating that he is of the view that there is a compensation agreement in place and has not objected to the Court proceeding as indicated. He wrote that he trusts that he will not be disadvantaged by the Court’s decision. Nothing else has been received. The applicable law [4] Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) 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 Mining Registrar, or in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Court. In this matter, no agreement in registrable form has been lodged with the Mining Registrar and the matter has been referred to the Court for determination. [5] The issues which must be considered by the Court are set forth in s 281(3) and (4) of the MRA. [6] Although s 281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not define any method of assessment. In Smith v Cameron,1 the Land Court held: “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.” 1 (1986-87) 11 QLCR 64, 74 – 75. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [7] In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd,2 the Land Court 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 from one method to another.” [8] In Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell,3 the then President of the Land Court, referring to s 281(3) of the MRA, found: “The latter section does not prescribe a method of assessment. In my view, as long as the amount of compensation finally determined sufficiently accounts for each of the matters referred to in the sub-section, it is not necessary to quantify an amount in respect of each of the matters referred to.” [9] In determining compensation under s 281 of the MRA, the Court has adopted the same approach that Deputy President Smith (as he then was) took in Richardson v Barrett.4 The matters set out in the section are matters to be taken into account in determining compensation, rather than being separate heads of compensation requiring separate treatment to arrive at an accumulated figure. [10] The overriding principle is of equivalence, ensuring that, so far as monetary compensation can do it, the landholders are placed in the same position as if the mining leases were not granted.5 Care must also be taken to ensure that there is no “doubling up” of compensation. This Court is a specialised Court and will apply its own expertise in order to assist it to perform its function. [11] Under s 281(3) of the MRA, the Court “shall settle the amount of compensation” that the landowners are entitled to. It must set a monetary figure only. A copy of the agreement dated 25 June 2013 and signed by Mr Ron Power as landowner and Mr Duane Rush for Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd was received by the Court by post on 3 March 2014 from Corella Valley Corporation Pty Ltd. Although the Mining Registrar apparently is not satisfied that it is acceptable for lodgement, the fact is that document contains an agreement between the parties. However, no amount of monetary compensation is mentioned in the agreement. [12] In order for it to perform it duty of determining compensation as set out in the MRA a sum of money must be set by the Court. There is no provision under the MRA for the Court to deal with any matters other than this. Determination of compensation 2 (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, 146. 3 (10 March 1998) unreported. 4 [2001] QLRT 89, 9, 10, 14. 5 Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26, 43 per Jacobs J. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [13] In the absence of evidence or submissions on the amount of compensation and in view of the agreement which does not include a sum of money the Court can only do the best it can. The agreement states that activities such as drilling would be subject to a renewed agreement. This is not an option available to the Court which must determine compensation on the material before it. The term sought is for five years and two months from the expiry date of 28 February 2013, leading to a new proposed expiry date of 30 April 2018. [14] Considering what has been referred to above, compensation is determined in the total amount of $1,000. The compensation shall be payable within one month of the renewal of the mining lease. Orders 1. Compensation for ML 90015 is determined in the total sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). 2. The compensation shall be payable by the applicant to the respondent within one month of the renewal of the mining lease. WA ISDALE MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT -- 4 of 4 --