Australian Granites Pty Ltd v Venlock Pty Ltd [2014] QLC 4

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Australian Granites Pty Ltd v Venlock Pty Ltd [2014] QLC 4 PARTIES: Australian Granites Pty Ltd (applicant) v Venlock Pty Ltd (respondent) FILE NO: MRA210-13 PROCEEDING: Claim for compensation for mining renewal. DELIVERED ON: 6 February 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDER: An amount of Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($375) shall be paid to the respondent 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. 95035 in the Townsville/Mount Isa Mining District and has applied to renew such mining lease for a further term, commencing on 1 April 2013, for a period of 10 years. The mining lease is held over land owned by the respondent landowner which land is described as Lot 3 on SP 117500 in the Parish of Farncombe, County of Waverley. The area of the mining lease is approximately 91.8 hectares. [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. [3] A decision on a related mining lease renewal ML 95014 over the same property was handed down by the Land Court on 24 May 2013: Australian Granites Pty Ltd v Venlock Pty Ltd [2013] QLC 26. [4] Both parties have now requested that evidence considered by the Court in that matter be again considered in the subject case. I agree that this is the appropriate course in the present circumstances. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [5] I note that the applicant had submitted a compensation agreement to the respondent landowner using the previous decision, that is ML 95014, as the basis for the compensation amount. However, the respondent did not agree to execute such, preferring the Court to determine the matter. [6] I also note that the respondent is now no longer legally represented, unlike the previous case where it was both legally represented and tendered valuation evidence. [7] As the parties are the same as in ML 95014, I do not intend to repeat the submissions of the respondent or those of the applicant for the purposes of this decision. They are extensively outlined in the previous decision. [8] The consideration of such submissions is also detailed in that decision and has equal application in the present matter. In particular, compensation should only be assessed on the basis of the area available for mining at any one time plus an equal area which may be in the process of rehabilitation. The Mining Registrar advises that this restriction is governed by the relevant Environmental Authority which applies to all three mining leases. [9] The total compensation amount is assessed at Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($375). As with ML 95014, this figure includes a small allowance for access. Order An amount of Three Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($375) shall be paid to the respondent by the applicant within two months of the renewal of the subject lease. BR O’CONNOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR -- 2 of 2 --