Exoblend Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines & Anor [2003] QLRT 101

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Exoblend Pty Ltd v Department of Natural Resources and Mines & Anor [2003] QLRT 101 PARTIES: Exoblend Pty Ltd (Applicant) -and- Department of Natural Resources and Mines (First Respondent) -and- Western Metals Copper Limited (ABN 88 004 664 108) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrators Appointed) (Second Respondent) FILE NO/S: CAV00100/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for caveats DELIVERED ON: 8 October 2003 (Ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 8 October 2003 PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. The Application is dismissed. (at [5]) 2. The Applicant pay the Second Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000 provided that the Second Respondent only recover one set of costs in respect of this application and application number CAV00099/2003. (at [7]) CATCHWORDS: CAVEAT – MINING LEASE – PROCEDURE Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 301, 305, 363 Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, s. 49 Arthur v Department of Natural Resources and Mines & Anor [2003] QLRT 100, applied COUNSEL: R.P. Doyle SC and D. Clotheir. for the Second Respondent SOLICITOR/S: Crown Solicitor, for the First Respondent Minter Ellison, Solicitors, for the Second Respondent AGENT/S: S. Baghdadi, for the Applicant -- 1 of 3 -- SMITH DP: (Ex Tempore) Background [1] I have today heard this matter in conjunction with an application by Mr Arthur.1 I have given reasons for judgment in the Arthur matter already this afternoon. I repeat and rely upon the reasons for judgment contained therein in this matter. [2] The Exoblend matter is a little unusual in that it comes before me in circumstances where Exoblend seeks caveats to be lodged by order of this Tribunal, even though it has not yet lodged a caveat with the relevant Mining Registrar pursuant to s. 301 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the MRA”). The Department of Natural Resources and Mines indicated to me earlier in these proceedings their concern as to the appropriateness of lodging a caveat in this matter as the Mining Registrar was concerned that the application by Exoblend was for substantially the same right or interest as the Arthur caveat. In the alternative, Exoblend seeks orders from the Tribunal under s. 363 of the MRA. [3] Certainly, what should have proceeded under the MRA was that the caveat should have been lodged with the Mining Registrar and accepted or rejected. If rejected, Exoblend could have sought appropriate remedies. If accepted, the Second Respondent could have proceeded to bring proceedings to have the caveat removed.2 Whatever way the matter had progressed, as Mr Doyle has pointed out in his submissions, one would have arrived at the same position where we found ourselves this afternoon in the Arthur matter; and that was in having the same parties before the Tribunal arguing the matter. [4] I accept the submissions made by Mr Baghdadi that Exoblend is a separate legal entity to that of Mr Arthur. However, I think it unnecessary to delve any further into the inter-relationships that may or may not exist between them. The Tribunal, in exercising its responsibilities under the Land and Resources Tribunal Act, is to act as quickly and with as little formality and technicality as is appropriate and consistent with a fair and proper consideration of the issues.3 [5] I therefore consider it appropriate to deal with this matter. For the reasons that I set out in the Arthur matter,4 on whatever basis this application is brought I do not consider it appropriate to make the orders as sought by Exoblend. I therefore order that the application be dismissed. [6] Mr Doyle also seeks in this matter an order of costs. I repeat and rely upon what I said in the Arthur matter.5 On any view, this application was misconceived in seeking to have the Tribunal make orders for the lodgement of a caveat under s. 301 of the MRA in circumstances where Exoblend had not even lodged an application for same with the Mining Registrar. 1 See [2003] QLRT 100. 2 See, for example, s. 305 of the MRA. 3 See s. 49 of Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999. 4 See [2003] QLRT 100. 5 See [2203] QLRT 100 paras. [26] and ]27]. -- 2 of 3 -- [7] I order that the Applicant pay the Second Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000 provided that the Second Respondent only recover one set of costs in respect of this application and application number CAV00099/2003. -- 3 of 3 --