Donovan v Struber & Anor [2006] QLRT 59

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Donovan v Struber & Anor [2006] QLRT 59 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 20244 – Determination of compensation payable by Gary Awarua Donovan to Stephen R. Struber and Dianne R. Wilson-Struber FILE NO/S: MLC46/06 PROCEEDING: Application for determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 29 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 Act in the sum of $910.00. (at [5]) 2. Pursuant to s 281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $91.00. (at [5]) 3. I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $1001.00 to the landholders within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. (at [6]) CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, s. 281 Lowe & Anor v Struber & Anor [2005] QLRT 33, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A Background [1] Gary Awarua Donovan (the miner) currently holds ML20224. The mining lease was originally granted on 13 June 1996, commencing 1 July 1996, for a period of 10 years. On 28 February 2006 the miner lodged an application for renewal of the -- 1 of 2 -- mining lease for a term of 10 years with the Mining Registrar, Mareeba District. The lease is located on Palmerville Holding, which is owned by Stephen R. Struber and Dianne R. Wilson-Struber (the landholders). Access to the lease is through Palmerville Holding. The lease is for the purpose of mining for alluvial gold, andalusite/sillimanite, ilmenite/leucoxene, iron-magnetite, monazite, pyrite and zircon and has an area of 45.2496ha, which I round to 45ha for the purposes of this determination. Tribunal Practice Direction [2] On 27 March 2006 the Tribunal sent letters to the miner 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 miner has provided limited material to the Tribunal, while the landholders have not complied in any way with the Tribunal Practice Direction. The only other relevant material available to the Tribunal is that which the Mining Registrar supplied. [3] 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 determined a matter in circumstances which mirror those before me, involving the same landholding and landholders, and I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in that case, Lowe & Anor v Struber & Anor [2005] QLRT 33. Miner’s Submissions [4] The miner’s submissions principally are contained in a draft compensation agreement. In that draft agreement, the miner proposes paying the landholders the sum of $2.00 per ha per year compensation. In his correspondence to the Tribunal, the miner points out that the “rateable amount on Palmerville Holdings is $1.19 per h.a.”. I note that in Lowe Mining Referee Windridge allowed $2.00 per ha per year compensation for like mining activities on this property, and I see no reason to depart from his assessment. Determination [5] Taking into account all heads of compensation in subsection 3 of s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act), I access compensation in the sum of $2.00 per annum per hectare for the term of the lease, which equates to $900.00. Like Mining Referee Windridge in Lowe, I award the additional sum of $10.00 for access, making a total award of $910.00. Pursuant to s 281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $91.00. [6] Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $1001.00 to the landholders within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. -- 2 of 2 --