Eidsvold Joint Venture v Jones & Anor [1996] QMW 119

• - -------- IN THE WARDENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND (-. HELD AT BRISBANE. BEFORE: F.W.WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN. '-- IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICATION FORA REVIEW AGAINST AN ORD ER THAT CURRENT ACTIVITIES ON MINING LEASE 80035 CEASE. APPLICANT: T.PROWSE ON BEHALF OF EIDSVOLD JOINT VENTURE. ~ ~ - RESPONDENTS: MR.C.JONES SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, AND MR.S.CLEARY, ENVIRONMENT AL OFFICER. By an application dated 23 Se ptember 1996, the applicant seeks to Review an order to cease activities on Mining Lease 80035. The application is appended and marked "111. [1996] QMW 119 -- 1 of 6 -- -- -- ---------- - - ---- - 2 The order to cease activities apparently arises out of a site visit conducted by Environmental Officer M.S.Cleary. Mr.Cleaty wrote to the applicant and raised certain matters in his letter dated 12 September 1996 and again on 23 September 1996 (see appendix 2). These "reports" appear to be the basis of a facsimile transmission from Mr.C. Jones, Senior Environmental Officer ROCKHAMPfON confirming that activities must cease and the letter was a direction under Section 405(4) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (appendix 3). r Mr.Prowse responds and relies on his submission dated 23 September 1996 (appendix 4) and a further submission dated 27th September 1996 (appendix 5). An interim injunction was issued by this Court on 26th day of September 1996 to maintain the status quo until the matter was heard and determined, as the usual undertakings had not been given (appendix 6). I have the advantage of a written report from Field Officer Elrick who has practical ("' · mining experience and who is familiar with the mining history and geological background of the lease. Mr.Elrick has visited the site on a number of occasions, as have I. That report is appendix 7. Because of the nature of the matters contained in the submissions, the statement of Mr.Prowse was recorded. That transcript is appendix 8. -- 2 of 6 -- ----------------- 3 It transpires from the evidence that the District Workers Representative who visited the lease made statements about matters on which he was neither experienced or qualified, and he should refrain from such action in the future. After reviewing the documentary evidence and perusing the submissions of Mr. Prowse, I am satisfied that the order of Mr.C. Jones to cease operations cannot be sustained on the facts. It is clear that Mr. Prowse was operating in accordance with his stated intentions which had been approved, and that the Environmental Officer lacked the knowledge to interpret the operations that were taking place. I have personally inspected this lease a number of times, and I am satisfied that there is no substance to the matters raised by Mr.Cleazy who has exhibited a clear lack of knowledge of mining and exploration, and a lack of courtesy in these matters. Mr. Prowse, along with other small mine operators, are complaining bitterly about the lack of assistance afforded to them, and the lack of visits by qualified and experienced personnel who could assist them with their problems, not a&:,aravate the situation with threats or closure. I am concerned that the Field Officer at Rockharnpton is instructed only to react on the written instructions of the Registrar, instead of circulating and monitoring all activities in his district. This mining operation is clearly an operation that should be visited by the Field Officer on a regular basis . -- 3 of 6 -- ---------- 4 Mr. Prowse has the distinct impression, and it appears to be backed up by the actions taken against him, that he is being victimised because of a past complaint about actions by the Rockhampton office. Field Officers and Environmental Officers must, in the future, only exercise their powers to direct a cessation of operations where there is a clear and distinct possibility of an environmental disaster or serious injury or death, or a flagrant and deliberate disobedience of a clear written order. Such orders should in the future be countersigned by a duly appointed Inspector of Mines where health and safety matters are concerned, and by the Registrar in all other matters. Because of the financial harm that may be done to a party by such a cessation, such orders should only be used as a last resort. Any departure from these guidelines may result in adverse comment from the Court. The party affected by an order that is set aside on review may have an action for damages. APPENDICES: 1. Application for Review. 2. Letters - Cleary - 12 & 23 September 1996. 3. Facsimile Transmission - C.Jones 23 Sept 1996. -- 4 of 6 -- ------ - - --- ---- 5 4. Submission - Prowse - 23 September 1996. 5. Submission - Prowse - 27 September 1996. 6. Copy Injunction. 7. Field Officers Report - Inspection 18 Sept 1996. 8. Transcript - Prowse. 9. Submission Prowse - Small Operators. C ORDER: (1) THE ORDER OF THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER ROCKHAMPfON MR.C.JONES AND ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER MR. S.CLEARY IN RELATION TO THE ACTMTIES ON MINlNG LEASE 80035 BE REVOKED. r IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: (2) THAT THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CONSIDER TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF MR. CLEARY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER. (3) THAT MR. C.JONES CEASE TO HAVE ANY SUPERVISORY DUTIES IN RELATION TO THIS MINING OPERATION, AND THAT ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER EMERALD. -- 5 of 6 -- - --------------- ., 6 (4) THAT FUTURE PLANS IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS BE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT OFFICER EMERALD FOR APPROVAL. (5) THAT MR. I. GOULD, REGISTRAR, BE REMOVED FROM THE ROCKHAMPTON DISTRICT. C {6) THAT THE FIELD OFFICER BE INSTRUCTED TO VISIT THE MINING LEASE AT NAGOORIN AT LEAST ONCE PER MONTH, AND THE EIDSVOLD OPERATION AT LEAST ONCE PER TWO MONTHS. Dated at Brisbane this 27th day of September 1996. F.W.WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN. -- 6 of 6 --