Dare v Knight [2007] QLRT 99

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dare v Knight [2007] QLRT 99 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Claim No 71586 by Kathleen Mary Dare and objections thereto by Noel Thomas Knight. FILE NO/S: MCA94/07 PROCEEDING: Application for mining claim with objections. DELIVERED ON: 3 August 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Order that the Registrar register the mining claim as Mining Claim No. 71586 over the whole of the application area for a term of 5 years. (at [9]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING CLAIM - INSTRUCTION TO REGISTER Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 61,71,77,78 Carr v Simnovec [1980]26 SASR 263 at 268 Pacminex v Aust. (Nephrite) Jade Mines [1974] 7 SASR 401 at 415 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application by Kathleen Mary Dare under s. 61 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining claim over land as described in the application and located in the Sapphire Designated Fossicking area for the purpose of mining for gold, diamond, sapphire and zircon for a term of five years. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Emerald on 24 October 2006. One objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 30 April 2007. -- 1 of 3 -- Request to dispense with a hearing - [2] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow at paragraph [4], I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act have been complied with in respect of the application. The material supplied by the applicant and the Mining Registrar addresses each of the criteria that I must consider in making my recommendation on this application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to properly consider this matter. The President of the Tribunal has directed that the matter be heard on the papers by a member sitting alone.1 Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this application be dispensed with. Section 61 criteria [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 61, I have relied upon the material and photographs supplied by the applicant. The objector has also filed written material and photographs. I have also relied upon the other technical material provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal, principally photocopies of documents and computer generated maps. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [4] A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 6 March 2007 which he can only do if satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining claim and has complied with the requirements of the Act for an application under s. 61 with respect to marking out, notification, service and posting of documents. Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] The application seeks the grant of a mining claim for the principal purpose of mining for gold, diamond, sapphire and zircon. Sapphire has been produced from this area in the past and this application is in close proximity other tenements. The applicant held a current prospecting permit at the time of marking out. The area is generally known for the production of sapphire, and I am satisfied that the area is generally mineralised and justifies the grant of a claim. Section 78(2) (c) Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [6] There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. There was no evidence before me that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. Section 78(2) (e) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining claim? [7] There was no evidence before me that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application. 1 See order dated 12 June 2007. -- 2 of 3 -- [8] I turn now to the objection. The objection relates to the access of the objector to one or more of his small tenements in the immediate area. The proposed claim is over part of the nominated access route (or track) of the objector Knight. Both parties supplied copious quantities of submissions and photographs, a fair portion of that material dealing with peripheral matters not directly related to the question to be considered. The only question to be considered is “can a mining tenement be granted over an access route or part of an access route.” The simple answer is yes. It is not uncommon for claims or leases to be granted over access routes held by others on the basis that to refuse to do so would sterilise mineral bearing land when the access can be amended or changed. Claims and leases have been granted over gazetted but unmade roads on the simple condition that if required, alternate access over the tenement is to be provided by the holder of the tenement. This extends to made and gazetted roads. The simple and available solution is that the claim holder must provide an alternate access over the tenement if required (assuming his workings disturb the surface area of the nominated access) or the holder of the access amends his nominated access route. Given the nature of the land in the immediate area, this does not appear to be a problem. I am not satisfied that there is any substance in the objection and the objection is struck out. Order [9] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I instruct the Registrar to register the claim, subject to any usual conditions imposed on tenements in this area, for the term of five years. (Carr v Simnovec & Pacminex v Aust (Nephrite) Jade Mines) -- 3 of 3 --