Cameron v Reinalda [2007] QLRT 64

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Cameron & Reinalda [2007] QLRT 64 PARTIES: Robert Bond Cameron (Applicant) & Charles Richard Reinalda (Respondent) FILE NOS: MRAA75/07 PROCEEDING: Application to determine matter arising between parties DELIVERED ON: 23 April 2007 (Ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 April 2007 PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: Application dismissed. (at [8]) CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE APPLICATION – RECOMMENDATION – COMPENSATION NOT DETERMINED – APPLICATION NOT PROGRESSED – REFERENCE TO TRIBUNAL Mineral Resources Act 1989, s 363(2(e) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] The matter arose by referral by the Mining Registrar at Charters Towers to the Tribunal under section 363(2)(e) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. [2] The background to the case is that there was a mining lease applied for in 2004 by both Mr Reinalda and Mr Cameron—Mr Reinalda being a 5% holder and Mr Cameron a 95% holder. The application was heard on the papers and a recommendation for grant made on 3 June 2005. Subsequently, it appears that difficulties arose in relation to the preparation of the required compensation agreements before the Mining Registrar could recommend to the Minister that the lease be granted. [3] The Mining Registrar appears to have taken all possible steps, including granting extensions of time for the applicants to arrange for the requisite compensation agreements to be obtained. Despite all of that, no compensation agreements have been forthcoming. -- 1 of 2 -- [4] The Mining Registrar’s report to the Tribunal advised that on 15 February 2007 a final notice was sent to Mr Reinalda, with a copy to Mr Robert Cameron, stating that failure to lodge the required documentation with the Mining Registrar’s office, or to contact that office in relation to outstanding matters within 10 business days, would result in a recommendation being made to the Minister for the mining lease application to be cancelled without further reference to those parties. No response was received from Mr Reinalda. [5] The Mining Registrar also reported that on 23 March there was a telephone discussion with Mr Cameron and following that, a letter was sent, I assume to Mr Cameron and Mr Reinalda, outlining a possible solution to resolving the outstanding issues—namely that Mr Cameron may refer the issue to this Tribunal. [6] The Mining Registrar then said that on 26 March correspondence was received from Mr Cameron stating that it had become increasingly harder to deal with the application in any way, as he was not the principal holder. I am not sure that I understand that because the Mining Registrar’s report indicates that Mr Cameron has a 95% interest in the application, and that he had been unable to contact Mr Reinalda regarding the progress of the application. The matter was therefore referred to the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter arising between the applicants as it relates to Mining Lease No 10323. [7] Following the Tribunal’s receipt on 30 March 2007 of the fax from the Mining Registrar requesting the Tribunal to take appropriate action, the Tribunal informed each party on 2 April that today would be a directions hearing to progress the matter. At today’s directions hearing, no appearance was received by either party. [8] In light of all of those circumstances, and particularly the fact that there have been no appearances today by either party and especially the party who referred this matter to the Tribunal and that there has been no request or contact by either of those parties with the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the appropriate action for the Tribunal to take is to dismiss this application—and I order accordingly. I also direct the Registrar of the Tribunal to inform the Mining Registrar at Charters Towers of the reasons which I have just given orally. If the Mining Registrar at Charters Towers then proceeds to recommend against the grant to the Minister, that, in my opinion, would be an appropriate action to take. -- 2 of 2 --