Alphadale Pty Ltd v Dore & Ors [2014] QLC 25

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Alphadale Pty Ltd v Dore & Ors [2014] QLC 25 PARTIES: Alphadale Pty Ltd (applicant) v. Michael Joseph Dore, Gerard Francis Lyons, Elizabeth Anne Lyons, Daniel John Turley, Marie Ann Turley, Atkinson Developments and Richard John Mann (respondents) FILE NO: MRA662-13 PROCEEDING: Claim for compensation for mining renewal. DELIVERED ON: 13 June 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDERS: 1. An amount of Eight Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($880) shall be paid to the respondents by the applicant within two months of the renewal of the subject lease. CATCHWORDS: Mining lease – Renewal – Claim for compensation. APPEARANCES: Not applicable - Heard on the papers [1] The applicant miner is the holder of Mining Lease No. 10192 in the Charters Towers Mining District and has applied to renew such mining lease for a further term, commencing on 1 August 2013, for a period of 9 years. The mining lease is held over land owned by the respondent landowners and which land is described as Lot 602, PH 1444 in the Parish of Kinross, County of Philp. The area of the mining lease is approximately 10.125 hectares. The predominant use of the land is cattle grazing, apart from existing mining activities. [2] The parties have been unable to agree on compensation payable for the renewal of the lease and the matter has been referred for Court determination, such determination to be on the papers without an oral hearing. Both parties have consented to this procedure. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [3] Both parties have made written submissions to the Court detailing how the valuation exercise should be approached. The applicant states that the current purpose of the lease is to secure the containment dam and access roads. [4] The applicant further states that no mining as such is planned on the lease other than the mining related activities relating to the dam. Should drilling in the adjacent areas suggest resources worth mining under this lease then this could change. [5] The applicant further states that the land over which the mining lease is located is unimproved (apart from the mining activities) and an amount of $50 per ha should be appropriate compensation award. [6] This figure is partly derived from Valuer-General figures on an adjoining property with an unimproved land value of $50 per ha (approx). [7] The respondents claim to have figures based on evidence from a local real estate agent that a figure of $200 per ha is more appropriate. However, no firm evidence was adduced to this figure. [8] While both sides have submitted written material, the Court’s task is made more difficult by not having such being tested in cross-examination as would be done in the case of an oral hearing. [9] However, given the relatively small amount of compensation at issue the expense and inconvenience of an oral hearing would not seem warranted. [10] I note an amended offer of $75 per ha was put to the applicant by the respondents at one stage in these proceedings. However, such was not accepted. [11] The original figure of $50 per ha was finally put to the respondents in conjunction with a series of offers in relation to other related leases. [12] Given that the lease is for only 9 years (although perhaps a slightly greater term may eventuate to arrive at a common end date with other leases), I am prepared to adopt the amended offer of $75 per ha for the lease area (rounded to 10 ha) for the following reasons:  The applicant’s figure is loosely based on a formal Valuer-General determination of an adjoining similar property. (Although such figure may be somewhat conservative).  There is a fence protecting the respondents’ cattle from the dam on the mining lease area.  For the balance of the lease area not fenced, the respondents’ cattle are still able to access this for grazing purposes. [13] To this figure of $750 (rounded) should be added a small amount (say $50) to cover the access issue (mentioned in the application for renewal of mining lease). -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [14] Allowing for 10% for compulsory nature of the process, under s 281(4)(e) of the Mineral Resources Act, the rounded final compensation figure is $880.00. Order 1. An amount of Eight Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($880) shall be paid to the respondents by the applicant within two months of the renewal of the subject lease. BR O’CONNOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR -- 3 of 3 --