Deeley v Hicks [2001] QLRT 39

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: In Re Ronald Leslie Deeley and Russell Brendon Hicks and Cameron Jeffrey Hicks [2001] QLRT 39 PARTIES: Ronald Leslie Deeley Applicant - and - Russell Brendon Hicks and Cameron Jeffrey Hicks Respondents FILE NO/S: LXX40004/2000 PROCEEDING: Ex Mero Motu Orders DELIVERED ON: 18 June 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: I order that (at [13]): 1. I set aside my orders of 5 June 2001. 2. The parties must file in the tribunal and serve on each other by 12 noon Tuesday 3 July 2001 any additional evidence in affidavit form that they may wish to bring before the tribunal. 3. Any affidavit material in response must be filed in the tribunal and served on each other by 12 noon Wednesday 4 July 2001. 4. File comprehensive written submissions and serve on the opposing parties by 4pm Wednesday 4 July 2001. 5. I relist this matter for hearing in Emerald on Thursday 5 July 2001 commencing at 8.45am for a period of 1 hour 5 minutes. 6. I grant each of the parties liberty to apply until 4pm 21 June 2001 should they seek an amendment to any of the above orders. (at [14]) CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION – HEARING – RE-OPEN – JUDICIAL PROCESS -- 1 of 5 -- Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 ss. 49, 50 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] SMITH DP: (Ex Mero Motu) In order to avoid costs to all parties, I have considered this matter and delivered this judgment on my own motion. My reasons for adopting this course appear below. [2] On 5 June 2001, following a directions hearing in this matter, I made the following orders: 1. The Applicant’s application to re-open the hearing be refused. (at [25]) 2. Order number 1 of myself dated 2 April 2001 be vacated and that in its place I make the following order: (1) Following delivery of judgment in the application in a proceeding in the matter of Elliot and Hicks LXX40066/2000 the parties may file and serve on each other further submissions as to the quantum of compensation that should be determined in this matter in accordance with the following timetable: (i) The Applicant Deeley within 10 days of the delivery of judgment. (ii) The Respondent Hicks within 17 days of the delivery of judgment. (iii) The Applicant Deeley may reply to any submissions made by or on behalf of the Respondents within three days of service of the Respondent’s submissions. (at [28]) [3] As is apparent from my reasons delivered on 5 June 2001, the Applicant in these proceedings was seeking to re-open the hearing of this matter and lead additional evidence. [4] Following consideration of this matter, I received, in chambers, on 12 June 2001 a letter dated 5 June 2001 from L and E Benney in the following terms: 5 June, 2001 Deputy President Smith Land and Resources Tribunal Level 13 15 Adelaide Street Brisbane Q 4000 Dear Deputy President Smith Ron Deeley/Cameron Hicks Keilembete On the 2nd April, 2001, we were at your tribunal hearing at Emerald Court House, Mr Ron Deeley, whilst under oath, quoted that GTN Resources (Great Northern) paid no compensation for their mining leases on ‘Subera’. As we own ‘Subera’, we made the -- 2 of 5 -- compensation agreement at the purchase of ‘Subera’ about 2 years ago. So we are enclosing part of the compensation agreement, the other part not enclosed is contained within the contract of sale. We have just enclosed this portion, to prove GTN Resources is paying compensation. Yours sincerely E Benney L. R. Benney L & E Benney ‘Subera’ P.O. Box 202 Sapphire Q 4702 Phone 07 49 854 753 [5] It is quite curious that I should receive such a letter in my chambers at this time. Although the letter clearly seeks to favour the Respondents, I do not know what caused L & E Benney to write the letter. [6] I have not received the letter of L & E Benney into evidence in this matter and will presently not be influenced by it in any way. However, I am mindful of the time honoured saying that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. [7] I am concerned that, in light of my decision of 5 June 2001, the Applicant may view the existence of the letter of L & E Benney as impacting on his case. [8] It is of paramount importance to the tribunal that all parties appearing before it receive natural justice. It is also important that the proceedings of the tribunal be open and transparent, with each party to a proceeding being both fully aware of all material before the tribunal, and in a position to make meaningful submissions on that material. The tribunal cannot and will not tolerate attempts by anyone, whether a party or not, to derogate from that. [9] Accordingly, and taking into account the provisions of s.49 of the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (hereafter the “LRT Act”) 1 it is my view that the coming to my attention of the letter of L & E Benney leaves me with no option but to allow each of the parties to file additional affidavit evidence in this matter should they choose to. However, in making this decision, I specifically draw to the parties’ attention the tribunal’s powers contained in s.50 of the LRT Act relating to costs and advise that I will give serious consideration to making 1 “For the proceeding, the tribunal may ………… decide the procedures to be followed for the proceeding.” -- 3 of 5 -- specific costs orders against either party should that party provide affidavit evidence or further submissions that are not specifically on point regarding issues of compensation in this matter. [10] The parties’ attention is also drawn to the fact that I have delivered judgment in the Application in a Proceeding in Elliot v Hicks 2001 QLRT 38. [11] In light of the above, I have decided to re-list this matter for hearing in Emerald on Thursday 5 July 2001 commencing at 8.45am for a period of 1hour 5 minutes for the purpose of receiving additional submissions from the parties. The parties must file in the tribunal and serve on each other by 12 noon Tuesday l3 July 2001 any additional evidence in Affidavit form, that they may wish to bring before the tribunal. Any affidavit material in response must be filed in the tribunal and served on each other by 12 noon Wednesday 4 July 2001. Comprehensive written submissions, including submissions taking into account the decision in Elliot v Hicks 2001 QLRT 38, must be filed and served on the opposing parties by 4pm Wednesday 4 July 2001. [12] The time period of 1 hour 5 minutes given to the parties for the purpose of additional submissions shall be strictly apportioned between the parties as follows: – oral submissions of the Applicant – 30 minutes – oral submissions of the Respondents – 30 minutes – reply by Applicant – 5 minutes [13] I make the following orders: 1. I set aside my orders of 5 June 2001. 2. The parties must file in the tribunal and serve on each other by 12 noon Tuesday 3 July 2001 any additional evidence in affidavit form that they may wish to bring before the tribunal. 3. Any affidavit material in response must be filed in the tribunal and served on each other by 12 noon Wednesday 4 July 2001. -- 4 of 5 -- 4. Comprehensive written submissions including submissions taking into account the decision in Elliot v Hicks 2001 QLRT 38 must be filed and served on the opposing parties by 4pm Wednesday 4 July 2001. 5. I relist this matter for hearing in Emerald on Thursday 5 July 2001 commencing at 8.45am for a period of 1 hour 5 minutes. [14] As my decision in this matter has been without notice to the parties, I grant each of the parties liberty to apply until 4pm 21 June 2001 should they seek an amendment to any of the above orders. -- 5 of 5 --