Copperchem v Hall [2012] QLC 63

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Copperchem v Hall [2012] QLC 0063 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 2751 – Determination of compensation payable by Copperchem Limited to Peter Hall FILE NO: MRA819-11 PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 9 November 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane MEMBER: Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar ORDERS: 1. Compensation determined at $2750. 2. The miner pay the total compensation of $2750 to the landholders, $950, two (2) months after the renewal of the Mining Lease a further $900 on the fifth anniversary of the renewal of the lease and the final $900 on the tenth anniversary of renewal of the lease. CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION Mineral Resources Act 1989 s.281 APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers Background [1] Copperchem Limited (the miner) currently holds Mining Lease 2751. The Mining Lease was originally granted on 23 February 1989 for a period of 21 years. On 14 January 2010 the miner lodged an application for a renewal of the Mining Lease for a term of 15 years with the Mining Registrar, Mt Isa. The area of the Mining Lease is 32 hectares. [2] This determination of compensation relates to access to the Mining Lease and for the Mining Lease itself over Lot 131, PH 1474 owned by Peter Hall (the landholder). -- 1 of 2 -- [3] On 17 November 2011 the Court sent letters to the miner and the landholder bringing the referral of this matter to the Court by the Mining Registrar to their attention and advising them of their obligations under Court Practice Direction. Timeframes for the submissions of relevant material were provided to each party. Neither the landholder or miner have made submissions to the Court. The landowner conducts low intensity grazing on the property. [4] It is not an uncommon occurrence for either or both parties in a compensation matter before the Court to fail to comply with Court Practice Direction. The absence of detailed, or any, compensation evidence clearly makes the task of the Court in determining compensation difficult. In the circumstances, I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in Re Wallace & Ors & Evans.1 Determination [5] Taking into account all heads of compensation in s.281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) and absent any details of the area of land required for access, I assess compensation for the Mining Lease at $5 per hectare for the term of the lease and a further nominal sum of $100 for access (this totals $2500). Pursuant to s.281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $250. [6] Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $2750 to the landholders, $950, two (2) months after the renewal of the lease, a further $900 on the fifth anniversary of the renewal of the lease and the final $900 on the tenth anniversary of the renewal of lease. BR O’CONNOR JUDICIAL REGISTRAR 1 [2006] QLRT 93. -- 2 of 2 --