Cameron, Re [2003] QLRT 18

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re G.L. Cameron [2003] QLRT 18 PARTIES: In the Matter of Application for Mining Lease No. 60337 by Glen Lionel Cameron FILE NO/S: AML00012/2003 PROCEEDING: Application to dispense with hearing DELIVERED ON: 10 February 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. I refuse the Application that the hearing of this matter be dispensed with. (at [9]) 2. I list this matter for a Directions Hearing at Brisbane on Wednesday 19 February 2003 at 10am. (at [10]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – APPLICATION TO DISPENSE WITH HEARING – CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE - DISCRETION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 269(4), 270 Oaths Act 1867 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] SMITH DP: On 13 November 2002 Glen Lionel Cameron (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No. 60337 with the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for opal. [2] No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application. [3] The Applicant has requested that the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided information pursuant to -- 1 of 2 -- √ Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report to which are attached relevant documents. [4] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). I note that there were no objections to this Application. It appears there is neither reserve nor restricted land in the area applied for. I am, therefore, satisfied that the preconditions to my exercising the discretion to dispense with a hearing have been fulfilled. However, the material supplied by the Applicant and the Mining Registrar raise concern regarding the appropriateness of my hearing this matter on the papers without an oral hearing. [5] On 9 December 2002, The Applicant swore a Statutory Declaration in this matter. The swearing of a Statutory Declaration is a serious matter which should not occur without due consideration by the deponent. I note in particular the provisions of the Oaths Act 1867. [6] In his Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of 9 December 2002, the Applicant deposes “no” in answer to the question “Has the Applicant (or a director of the Applicant company) ever had a (i) show cause notice, (ii) conviction, (iii) penalty, or (iv) tenure cancelled, under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 or the Mining Act 1968?”. [7] The Mining Registrar, Quilpie District, provided a report to the Tribunal on 31 January 2003 which contains the following: “As far as you are aware, has the Applicant (or a director of the Applicant company, if a company) ever had a (i) show cause notice, (ii) conviction, (iii) penalty, or (iv) tenure cancelled, under the MRA or the Mining Act 1968? Yes No If Yes, give details including (if applicable) how the matter was resolved. Tenures cancelled – Winton Mining District – 01.04-1993 for non-payment of yearly rent (Mining Claims 4717, 4718, 4719 & 4720).” [8] In light of the conflict of evidence between the Statutory Declaration and the Mining Registrar’s report, I do not consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion to dispense with a hearing. Additionally, the material currently before me does not appear to meet all the criteria that I must take into account and consider pursuant to s. 269(4) of the MRA. [9] Accordingly, I refuse the Application that the hearing of this matter be dispensed with. [10] I further order that this matter be listed for a Directions Hearing at Brisbane on Wednesday 19 February 2003 at 10am. -- 2 of 2 --