Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2007] QLRT 100
LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL
QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation
Limited [2007] QLRT 100
PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease 1435 – Application by
Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd for determination of
compensation payable to Telstra Corporation
Limited.
FILE NO: MLC91/07
PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON: 8 August 2007
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers
MEMBER: Windridge MR
ORDER/S: 1. I determine total compensation under s. 281 in
the sum of $100.00. (at [13])
2. I direct that the miner pay the total
compensation in the sum of $100.00 to Telstra
Corporation Limited within 2 months of
notification of the renewal of mining lease 1435
by the Mining Registrar. (at [14])
CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF
COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 281
Smith v Cameron [1986-87] 11 QLCR 64
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd [1992-93] 14 QLCR
139
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10.03.98) unreported
COUNSEL: N/A
SOLICITORS: N/A
Background
[1] The applicant Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd (the miner) seeks the renewal of Mining
Lease 1435 in the Charters Towers District. The application for renewal is for a term
of 21 years. The lease is granted for the purpose of mining for a number of minerals,
principally gold.
-- 1 of 3 --
[2] Part of the lease is located over Lot 17, Parish Ravenswood, County Gladstone. This
lot is owned by Telstra Corporation Limited. This lot, or that part of the lease that is
over this lot is 2.672 hectares in area. For the purpose of this determination, I round
off the area to 3 hectares.
The Act
[3] Section 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) 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 Registrar, or in the absence of such
an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Tribunal. In
this instance, no agreement has been lodged with the Registrar and the matter has
been referred to the Tribunal for determination.
[4] The matters which must be considered by the Tribunal are set forth in section 281(3)
of the Act. Although section 281 sets out the matters to be considered, it does not
define any method of assessment. The following Land Court case reports may offer
some guidance in determining the approach to be adopted. In Smith v Cameron
(1986) 11 QLCR 64, the Land Court held at p.74…
“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.”
[5] In Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR 139, the Court at p.146
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.”
[6] In considering Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell (10 March 1998) unreported, the
President of the Land Court, referring to section 281(3) of the Mineral Resources
Act, 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.”
The evidence
[7] Neither party sought to appear before the Tribunal and this matter has been dealt
with on the papers. Neither party filed statements or other supporting material.
Some documentation in relation to factual matters was provided by the Registrar.
Where necessary, I have referred to these documents for the purpose of accuracy.
[8] There was no formal valuation evidence to consider therefore the Court does not
have that assistance in arriving at a determination. Due to the small area involved,
the cost of a valuation would far outweigh any award for compensation. Due to the
small area involved, co-use or co-occupation would not be feasible.
-- 2 of 3 --
[9] There have been no recent determinations of compensation in the Charters Towers
District. The lease (including this lot) is located to the east of the public road which
leads to Ravenswood from the Flinders Highway.
[10] In summary, there was no evidence called to support any claim under any other head
of compensation, nor was any matter raised which would necessitate consideration
under paragraphs (a), (c), (d), or (e) of subsection 4 of section 281 of the Act.
Access
[11] There is no detail of any land lost through access. I make no award for access.
Quantum
[12] There is no evidence of the actual use of the land by Telstra, or the effect that the
renewal of the lease will have over the land.
[13] Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider that the following award will
satisfy the requirements of section 281 for the term of the renewed lease for the
limited purposes authorised by the grant of the lease. Drawing on the limited
evidence that is available, I determine compensation under Part 7 of the Mineral
Resources Act 1989, to satisfy all heads of compensation set forth in subsection 3 of
section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 shall be the sum of $1.00 per hectare
per annum for the term of the renewal. The compensation award is $63.00. I further
award the sum of $6.30 under section 281(4) (e) to reflect the compulsory nature of
the action taken under this part, making a total award of $69.30. I round off the
award to $100.00.
Terms of payment
[14] In relation to the terms, conditions and times when payments should be made, I take
into account the quantum of the order, the size of the lease and the term of the lease.
In these circumstances, I order that the miner pay total compensation to Telstra
Corporation Limited in the sum of $100.00 within a period of two (2) months from
notification of renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QLRT/2007/100