Brown v Armstrong and Armstrong and Environmental Protection Agency [2003] QLRT 1

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Gregory John Brown v Dean Lindsay Armstrong and Lisa Maree Armstrong and Environmental Protection Agency [2003] QLRT 1 PARTY/IES: In the Matter of Application for Mining Lease No. 70297 by Gregory John Brown (Applicant) - and - Dean Lindsay Armstrong and Lisa Maree Armstrong (Objectors) - and - Environmental Protection Agency (Statutory Party) FILE NO/S: AML00030/2002 ENO00064/2002 PROCEEDING: Application by objectors for stay DELIVERED ON: 9 January 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 9 January 2003 PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. I dismiss the applications for a stay for both the mining lease objections and the environmental objections. (at [7]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – APPLICATION FOR STAY – ADJOURNMENT – DISCRETION – DELAY Re Gregory John Brown v Dean Lindsay Armstrong and Lisa Maree Armstrong [2002] QLRT 39, referred to Armstrong & Anor v Miles & Anor [2002] QCA 504, referred to COUNSEL: Mr A. Barlow, for the Applicant SOLICITOR/S: Paul Watts & Co, for the Applicant AGENT/S: Mr G. T. Houen, for the objectors -- 1 of 3 -- Dr I Wilson, for the Environmental Protection Agency (Statutory Party) [1] SMITH DP: (ex tempore) On 2 July 2002, I gave reasons for judgment in relation to an application by the objectors for a stay.1 As part of those reasons for judgment I made orders adjourning the application in a proceeding to Chambers in the event that facts to be crystallised by the filing of additional material in the substantive application may change the nature of the application and my decision of 2 July 2002. [2] This matter has progressed through, I should say, many twists and turns, not all of which have been as a result of the actions of the objectors, but, indeed, also on behalf of the actions undertaken by the mining lease applicant. Mr Houen, on behalf of the objectors, now seeks that the stay application be re-enlivened. He has handed to me a chronology which has been accepted, as I understand it, by each of the parties in this matter. The chronology is in the following terms: “ Chronology 2002 15 April Issue of Certificate of Public Notice MLA 70297 17 May Objections lodged by D.L. & L.M. Armstrong (“Landholders”) 12 June Directions hearing, Landholders’ application for adjournment 24 June Landholders filed application in a proceeding 26 June Applicant’s response filed 1 July Landholders’ reply filed 2 July Tribunal judgment – application in a proceeding adjourned, orders to prepare for hearing 26 July Applicant’s evidence filed and served 31 July Landholders’ application in accordance with orders for further hearing of application in a proceeding (filed 24th June) Landholders’ application seeking the right to amend grounds of objection 7 August Tribunal hearing on Landholders’ applications (did not proceed) 12 August Landholders’ evidence filed and served 19 August Tribunal hearing on Landholders’ applications – Applicant given granted leave to file and serve additional material 3 September Applicant’s additional material filed and served 11 September Hearing of Landholders’ adjournment and amendment applications – further adjourned 2 October Chambers Order for hearing on 24th October (subsequently postponed at the Applicant’s request) 17 December Tribunal directions hearing 2003 9 January Tribunal hearing of Landholders’ applications regarding adjournment and amendment of objections” [3] What has occurred is that the Court of Appeal in another matter has determined a point of law, in effect, against the submissions made by Mr Houen relating to whether or not a mining lease can be granted in circumstances where what is occurring is, as Mr Houen puts it, in effect, exploration.2 A special leave application in that matter has now been made to the High Court. [4] I will now proceed on the basis that the current case before me is put at its highest or lowest, depending upon which side of the fence it is looked at from. Assume for a 1 [2002 QLRT 39. 2 Armstrong & Anor v Miles & Anor [2002] QCA 504. -- 2 of 3 -- moment, which I am doing for the purpose of this judgment only, that the facts in this case are identical to those in the matter currently under appeal seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Even if this matter is on all fours I am still not persuaded that it would be appropriate at this time to grant the stay application sought by Mr Houen in each application. [5] As Mr Barlow for the applicant has pointed out, the law relating to stay applications is similar to that relating to applications for injunctions. The presumption of law is that judgments of all Courts and Tribunals apply and are enforceable even in the event of appeal unless a specific application is brought. Of course in this matter it is not the matter under appeal in which a stay is sought but indeed another matter. [6] The application for special leave to appeal to the High Court has only recently been made. From experience, I would expect it would be many months before the High Court will be in a position to hear that application for special leave. I do not believe that the interests of justice support the mining lease applicant in this matter being delayed while that appeal process is undertaken. [7] At the end of the day, if the appeal to the High Court is successful, it may be that the landholder/objectors in this matter have thrown away costs relating to their application. In that regard the mining lease applicant is pressing forward his application and there may be some argument as to costs although I stress I certainly make no finding that there would be any costs awarded in this matter. In effect the only real disadvantages which will flow in this matter are costs and time. The objectors will clearly be put to inconvenience by being involved in a matter but even if the High Court makes its decision in terms favourable to the appellant in that matter, then nonetheless this Tribunal would still be seized of the current application which would need to go through a hearing process. I do not believe it appropriate to delay that hearing process any longer. I therefore dismiss the applications for a stay for both the mining lease objections and the environmental objections. -- 3 of 3 --