Campbell v Mudge [2006] QLRT 138

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Campbell v Mudge [2006] QLRT 138 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 20174 – Determination of compensation payable by John Rees Campbell to John Davey Mudge FILE NO/S: MLC126/06 PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 31 October 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers MEMBER/S: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. Compensation determined at $363.00. (at [5]) 2. The miner pay the total compensation of $363.00 to the landholder within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. (at [6]) CATCHWORDS: COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A Background [1] John Rees Campbell (the miner) currently holds ML20174. The mining lease was originally granted on 1 September 1995 for a period of 10 years. On 30 March 2005 a previous owner of the Mining Lease lodged an application for renewal of the mining lease for a term of 10 years with the Mining Registrar, Mareeba District. [2] The lease is located on a property owned by John Davey Mudge (the landholder). Access to the lease is through the landholder’s property. The renewal is for the purpose of mining for tin. The lease area is 10ha. Tribunal Practice Direction [3] On 12 July 2006 the Tribunal sent letters to the miner and the landholder bringing the referral of this matter to the Tribunal by the Mining Registrar to their attention, and advising them of their obligations under Practice Direction 1 of 2003. Timeframes for the submission of relevant material were provided to each -- 1 of 2 -- party. Neither party has complied in any meaningful way with the Tribunal Practice Direction, apart from the miner making an undetailed compensation offer to the landholder. Accordingly, the only relevant material available to the Tribunal to determine compensation is that which the Mining Registrar supplied. [4] It is not an uncommon occurrence for either or both parties in a compensation matter before the Tribunal to fail to comply with Practice Direction 1 of 2003. Mining Referee Windridge has recently determined a matter in circumstances which mirror those before me, and I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in that case, Re Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93. Determination [5] Taking into account all heads of compensation in subsection 3 of s. 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act), and relying on Mining Referee Windridge in Wallace, I assess compensation in the sum of $3.00 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, which equates to $300.001. Doing the best that I can with the limited material before me, I award the additional sum of $30.00 for access, making a total award of $330.00. Pursuant to s. 281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $33.00. [6] Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $363.00 to the landholder within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. 1 I am of course aware that the miner offered the sum of $500 per year to the landholder for compensation, but as that amount was not accepted by the landholder, the tribunal must proceed to a determination. A determination must be based on the MRA and not on offers made as between the parties. However, I have had regard to the offer in deciding to determine $3.00 per ha per year from the Mining Referee’s range in previous cases in this District of $1.00 to $3.00 per ha. -- 2 of 2 --