Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd v East End Mine Action Group Inc [2006] QLRT 26

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd v East End Mine Action Group Inc [2006] QLRT 26 PARTIES: Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd (Applicant) v East End Mine Action Group Inc (Respondent) FILE NO: AML5/06 PROCEEDING: Respondent’s application to adjourn proceedings and amend mining lease objection DELIVERED ON: 28 March (Ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 28 March 2006 MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: Respondent’s application dismissed. (at [4]) CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE APPLICATION – OBJECTION – whether proceedings should be adjourned to enable objection to be amended Mineral Resources Act 1989, s. 268(3) Wall v Windridge, Supreme Court of Queensland, 29 April 1997, Unreported, considered ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Quandamooka Lands Council Aboriginal Corporation [2002] 1 QdR 347 (CA), referred to COUNSEL: R. Traves SC, for Applicant J. Murphy, for Respondent SOLICITORS: Clayton Utz for Applicant Rees R & Sydney Jones, Rockhampton for Respondent [1] In this mining lease application, counsel for the objector sought an adjournment today (the return date of the miner’s application to strike out the objection) to enable him to amend his client’s objection to rearrange and reformulate the grounds and -- 1 of 2 -- supporting facts and circumstances. The only authority relied upon was Demack J’s decision in Wall v Windridge,1 where it was said that procedural unfairness may justify allowing an objection to be amended. Senior counsel for the miner opposed that course. [2] Having considered the very competent submissions made, I am not satisfied that there would be any procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s proceeding on the basis of the grounds of objection and facts and circumstances already lodged by the objector. I can understand the approach adopted by Demack J in Wall because in that case, there was a very late filing by the mining lease applicant of an amended EMOS. I agree with Mr Traves SC’s submission that perhaps a more appropriate way of proceeding in that case might have been to have ordered the mining lease application to be readvertised. That course was not adopted but in the end, Demack J felt that an amendment could have been granted to deal with the fresh material in the EMOS. Those circumstances are quite different from the present case. [3] I am not satisfied that any procedural unfairness would result to the objector if it were required to abide by the terms of the objection which it prepared—admittedly, without legal advice. Mr Murphy’s submissions dealt with the suggested procedural unfairness of the Tribunal’s proceeding to hear this matter without the supporting facts and circumstances being rearranged and reformulated so as to support the individual grounds of objection. But that, I think, is an unfortunate result from the way in which the objection was drafted; and it seems to me that the terms of section 268(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 19892 and the judgments in the ACI Operations case3 require the Tribunal to deal with objections in the way in which they have been compiled. Were that not the case, it would effectively require a mining lease applicant to prepare for a different case from that set out in the objection. [4] In those circumstances, Mr Murphy’s application for an adjournment to enable the grounds and supporting facts and circumstances to be revised is refused. [5] [After a short adjournment, counsel for the parties sought orders by consent that (a) the objection be dismissed, and (b) there be no order as to costs. These orders were made.] 1 Supreme Court of Queensland, 29 April 1997, Unreported. 2 Section 268(3) provides as follows: “268 Hearing of application for grant of mining lease … (3) The tribunal shall not entertain an objection to an application or any ground thereof or any evidence in relation to any ground if the objection or ground is not contained in an objection that has been duly lodged in respect of the application. … .” 3 ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Quandamooka Lands Council Aboriginal Corporation [2002] 1 QdR 347 (CA). -- 2 of 2 --