Adams & Anor v Waddell & Anor [2006] QLRT 63

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Adams & Anor v Waddell & Anor [2006] QLRT 63 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease Application No 20427 – Determination of compensation payable by Reginald Noel Adams and Kenneth Arthur Tobler to Caroline Anne Waddell and Campbell Patrick Williams FILE NO/S: MLC38/06 PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers MEMBER/S: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. I determine compensation under s. 281 of the Mineral & Resources Act 1989 (the Act) in the sum of $637.50. (at [9]) 2. Pursuant to s. 281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $63.75. (at [9]) 3. I order that the miners pay the total compensation of $701.25 to the landholders within two months of the grant of the mining lease. (at [10]) CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279; 281 Re Adams & Anor [2005] QLRT 71, referred to Lowe & Anor v Struber & Anor [2005] QLRT 33, applied Re Australian Diatomaceous Earth Pty Ltd & Marsterson [2004] QLRT 49, considered Redhead v Joyce [2003] QLRT 37, applied Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89, referred to COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A -- 1 of 4 -- Background [1] On 16 April 2004 Reginald Noel Adams and Kenneth Arthur Tobler (“the miners”) lodged an application for ML20427 (the MLA). On 10 June 2005, Mining Referee Windridge recommended that the mining lease be granted1. Pursuant to s. 279 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act), the mining lease cannot be granted until compensation is either agreed or determined by the Tribunal. As compensation has not been agreed, the matter has been referred to the Tribunal by the Mining Registrar, Mareeba District, for determination of compensation. [2] The MLA is located on Woodleigh Station, which is owned by Caroline Anne Waddell and Campbell Patrick Williams (“the landholders”). Access to the lease is through Woodleigh Station. The lease is for treatment plant purposes and has an area of 7.5625ha, which I round to 7.5ha for the purposes of this determination, and a term of 25 years. I note that the subject land has been the site of a treatment plant, under different ownership, for a number of decades. Tribunal Practice Direction [3] On 13 March 2006 the Tribunal sent letters to the miners and the landholders advising them of their obligations under Practice Direction 1 of 2003. Timeframes for the submission of relevant material were provided to each party. The miners and the landholders have only provided limited material to the Tribunal, chiefly relating to draft compensation agreements. The only other relevant material available to the Tribunal is that which the Mining Registrar supplied. [4] In the absence of detailed submissions and valuation evidence by the parties, I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in Lowe & Anor v Struber & Anor [2005] QLRT 33. Submissions [5] The miners’ submissions are principally contained in correspondence in response to the landholders’ draft compensation agreement. The landholders’ compensation agreement is worded in terms similar, in some respects, to a commercial rental agreement.2 I note in particular the title RENT/COMPENSATION in clause 3.2 of the draft agreement, which proposes in its terms that the miners pay “the sum of $5,000.00 per annum…..by way of rental and/or compensation” for the duration of the agreement, which is 5 years, with an option for a further 5 years. As set out in paragraph 2 above, the mining lease will be for a term of 25 years. 1 Re Adams & Anor [2005] QLRT 71. 2 The landholders also supplied an affidavit by Caroline Anne Waddell which, apart from indicating that the miners did not supply their material within the time stipulated, refers to the annexed copy of the draft compensation agreement which is said to be fair and equitable. -- 2 of 4 -- [6] In Re Australian Diatomaceous Earth Pty Ltd & Marsterson [2004] QLRT 49, at paragraphs 3 to 6, President Koppenol considered the provisions of s. 281 (3) and (4) of the Act. Clearly, the Tribunal is limited in its determination of compensation to the provisions of the Act. As the landholders’ draft compensation agreement does not follow the statutory scheme, it is of no assistance in determining compensation in this matter. Determination [7] The material provided by the Mining Registrar includes a ‘Department of Natural Resources IVASE Property Details Report”. That report, which is for Woodleigh Station, shows the ‘value’ of the property to be $1,250,000 as at the valuation date of 1 October 2004. Although of course that valuation is not made for the purposes of assessing compensation payable under the Act, in the absence of any other relevant evidence, my assessment of compensation is based on that report. Of course, I have no evidence to indicate whether the MLA is located on superior or inferior land on the property, or whether land values in the vicinity of the property have remained static, increased or decreased since 1 October 2004. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I proceed on the basis that the MLA is on average land on the property, and that the value of the land has remained static. I note that the valuation of $1,250,000 is for 16,700ha. This equates to $74.85 per ha, which I round to $75.00 per ha. [8] As the MLA is for a term of 25 years, in my view this can be treated as a total loss of the MLA area. In this regard, I agree with the comments made by Deputy President Kingham in Redhead v Joyce [2003] QLRT 37 at paragraph 15. Accordingly, unlike mining leases of a relatively short duration where a discount factor is applied3, I do not consider it appropriate to allow any discount in this instance. [9] Taking into account all heads of compensation in subsection 3 of s. 281 the Act, I access compensation in the sum of $75.00 per ha, which equates to $562.50. Doing the best I can in the absence of evidence relating to access, I award the additional sum of $75.00 for access4, making a total award of $637.50. Pursuant to s. 281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $63.75. [10] Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $701.25 to the landholders within two months of the grant of the mining lease. Postscript [11] Given the amount of ‘rent’ that the landholders were seeking from the miners each year, it may seem that the above award of compensation is small. However, the Tribunal can only act on the basis of evidence before it, and accordingly all parties in compensation matters should take great care to ensure that they comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 1 of 2003. Clearly, in some instances where the quantum of compensation sought is very small, it is understandable that parties do not go to great expense with their submissions. However, where a party 3 See, for instance, Richardson v Barrett [2001] QLRT 89 at 22. 4 On the rough basis that access affects say 1 ha of land. -- 3 of 4 -- is arguing that compensation should be somewhat more than a nominal amount, it is incumbent on that party to ensure all relevant evidence is placed before the tribunal. Further, while this and most compensation matters are dealt with ‘on the papers’, the practice direction clearly indicates that parties are free to request a hearing should they believe circumstances warrant one. -- 4 of 4 --