Faulconer Australia Inc & Mount Margaret Pty Ltd, Re [2004] QLRT 85

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re V.E. Faulconer Australia Inc & Mount Margaret Pty Ltd [2004] QLRT 85 PARTIES: Vernon E. Faulconer Australia Inc (Applicant) and Mount Margaret Pty Ltd – ATP 543 (Respondent) FILE NO/S: PGC116/04 PROCEEDING: Application to determine compensation DELIVERED ON: 1 September 2004 (Ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 1 September 2004 PRESIDING MEMBERS: Koppenol P ORDER/S: 1. Leave to amend Response refused. (at [2]) 2. Compensation determined as agreed between the parties. (at [7]) CATCHWORDS: COMPENSATION — PETROLEUM ACT — EFFECT OF RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE — WHETHER LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE GRANTED Petroleum Act 1923, ss 36, 98(3) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: Z. Farmer for the Applicant N. MacFadyen of Thynne & Macartney for the Respondent AGENT/S: N/A [1] This is an application by the applicant under sections 36 and 98(3) of the Petroleum Act 1923 to determine compensation for proposed drilling and associated activities on ATP 543. The respondent landowner filed a response to the application. It is submitted by the applicant that the response admitted the amount of compensation which the applicant seeks. The respondent disputes that view but also seeks leave to amend its response to make that clear. The matter apparently has been the subject of negotiations between the parties for some time. The parties have been unsuccessful -- 1 of 2 -- in reaching agreement and as a result of that the applicant has brought this application. [2] After hearing the parties’ submissions and examining the documents relied upon, I do not propose to grant leave to amend. The respondent argued that it had always treated “compensation” as encompassing the amount of “consideration” which the parties were discussing. I do not accept that contention. I am satisfied that at all material times the respondent intended to distinguish between the amount of compensation and the amount of consideration which would be payable. Both the draft agreement advanced by the respondent and that by the applicant (Exhibit 1) clearly distinguish between compensation and consideration. [3] Turning now to the wording of the response. The relevant part reads as follows: “Response to claim. The respondent disputes the following parts of the application. Other than the amount of compensation and consideration payable the terms of the applicant’s compensation agreement are unacceptable.” [4] In my view, that paragraph accepts the amount of compensation which the applicant is seeking. For a party to say that it disputes the claim other than specified parts is really to say that it admits those specified parts but disputes the rest. I cannot see that any other interpretation is seriously open. [5] The respondent submitted that orders should be made referring the application to mediation or to a hearing. It was said that the Tribunal could include conditions dealing with “good neighbour” and other issues. I do not accept that submission. The Petroleum Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine “the amount of compensation” only. My attention was not drawn to any statutory provisions which would enable the Tribunal to determine the other issues suggested. [6] I see no purpose in this matter going to mediation or going any further towards a hearing. Despite today being the first directions hearing, I am satisfied that the application can be determined here and now on the basis that the claim for compensation has, by the terms of the respondent’s response, been accepted by the respondent. [7] In the circumstances, I will make an order in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers. -- 2 of 2 --