Lunn v Mudge[2016] QLC 50

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This proceeding concerns a referral to the Land Court by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of Mining Lease 20174 (ML 20174). 
2. [2]
   Kevin Lunn and Diane Robb are the applicants, for the renewal of ML 20174 located on land described as Lot 1 on AP 17369.   ML 20174 comprises a mining area of approximately 10 ha and a 1.1 km access track across land owned by the respondent John Davey Mudge (the landowner).
3. [3]
   The land is used for grazing purposes and is located approximately 16 kilometres south-east of Irvinebank in the Mareeba mining district and within the Tablelands Regional Council local government area. 
4. [4]
   The specific Land Court reference and tenure details are set out as follows: 

Relevant Legislation

“It is beyond question as I have written above that the primary source of law is the statute under consideration and it seems to me that the learned Member acknowledged this when he said:

‘The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation.’

Section 281 MRA neither prescribes nor suggests a method of assessment or valuation either. The selection of an appropriate method is a matter for the relevant expert, however, there is one warning that I should post. If the expert was to approach the assessment of compensation by simply accumulating figures assessed independently under each of the items listed in s.281(3)(a)(i) to (vi) and without regard to the prospect of a matter being dealt with under more than one item, the chance that there will be a duplication of items assessed will be high.”

The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence

8. [8]
   On 2 March 2016, the Land Court registry wrote to the parties setting out a timetable for the delivery of materials and submissions in accordance with Land Court Practice Direction No. 6 of 2015. 
9. [9]
   Since this date neither the miner nor the landowners have not filed any material relevant to the determination of compensation for ML 20174.  Email correspondence was received on Saturday 18 June 2016 by the Court from the respondent.  This correspondence contended that no mining was in fact being carried out on ML 20174 and that the lease area was not subject to local authority rates or Crown rental payable by the miners. These matters raised by the landowner are not able to be resolved as part of this proceeding as the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the determination of a monetary sum of compensation^[2].
10. [10]
    As there has been no expert or other evidence filed by the parties, the referral documents from DNRM are the only materials before me for consideration. In such cases the views of Member Jones [as he then was] in Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman^[3], regarding the determination process are very relevant:

“I realise that my determination of compensation in this case is the result of little more than calculated guesswork or speculation. However, in circumstances where the parties have elected to provide little or no material to the Court concerning their position about compensation there is not much more that the Court can do.”

11. [11]
    On the basis of the material before me I propose to follow relevant Court judgments from the Mareeba district in completing this assessment.  Determinations from within the district range from $5 per hectare per annum to $15 per hectare per annum^[4].  In the case of Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor^[5] Member PA Smith allowed the sum of $10 per hectare per year for mining areas and $5 per hectare per year for access areas.  In Burtenshaw v Mudge [2015] QLC 1 the Judicial Registrar also applied these earlier determinations when undertaking an assessment in respect of the subject land, Lot 1 on AP 17369. 

Determination

12. [12]
    The referral material provided by DNRM confirms a mining area of 10 ha and an access track across the subject land that is approximately 1.1 km in length and 10 m in width. I propose to round this access area to 2 ha for determination purposes.
13. [13]
    On the basis of the earlier Court judgments my assessment in respect of ML 20174 is set out as follows:

Area covered by mining lease – 10 ha @ $10 per ha per annum = $100 per annum

Area covered by access –   2 ha @ $  5 per ha per annum = $  10 per annum

add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant                        = $  11 per annum

Total = $121 per annum

14. [14]
    In light of the annual amount and the duration of the renewal period of 10 years I determine compensation in the total amount $ 1210.

ORDERS

1. In respect of ML 20174 compensation is determined in the total sum of $1210 for the renewal period of 10 years.
2. The miner pay compensation to the landowners the amount set out in order 1 within three months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

GJ SMITH

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR