Reddicliffe v Dixon[2017] QLC 49

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   These matters concern referrals to the Land Court pursuant to s 281(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the grant of mining leases ML 30224 and ML 30225.

Background

2. [2]
   Ronald Mark Reddicliffe (the miner) seeks the grant of two mining leases namely ML 30224 and ML 30225 on land owned by Thomas Malcolm Dixon and Lorna Mary Dixon (the landowners).  The subject land is more particularly described as Lot 320 on AP 4581, and is situated within the Georgetown mining district and Etheridge Shire local government area.
3. [3]
   The area relevant to ML 30224 comprises an access track across the subject land, while the relevant area of ML 30225 comprises a triangular shaped .43 ha mining area.   The subject land is used for grazing purposes. The Court references and the tenure details are set out below:

Relevant legislation

4. [4]
   Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court. In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with DNRM and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination.

5. [5]
   Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation.  In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for:

2. (i)
   deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;

2. (ii)
   diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

2. (iii)
   diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon;

4. (iv)
   severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner;

2. (v)
   any surface rights of access;

2. (vi)
   all loss or expense that arises;

as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease.

6. [6]
   Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation determination. In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as follows:

1. “(4)
   In assessing the amount of compensation payable under subsection   (3) -

….

2. (e)
   an additional amount shall be determined to reflect the compulsory nature of action taken under this part which amount … shall be not less than 10% of  the aggregate amount determined under subsection (3).”

The conduct of the proceedings and evidence

7. [7]
   Although filed on different dates both referrals have been dealt with together given both involve the same parties and the same land. As the parties were unable to negotiate a compensation agreement a Court supervised Preliminary Conference was held at the Mareeba Courthouse on 17 November 2016. Notwithstanding the conference the proceedings remain unresolved.
8. [8]
   In the circumstances and given the extended period of negotiations, a Deputy-Registrar wrote to the parties requesting that any evidence, materials or submissions be provided to the Court by 4:00pm on 4 August 2017.  No materials have been provided by either party in response to this request. The only materials before the Court consist of the referral documents provided by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines in respect of each matter.

9. [9]
   In the absence of any expert or other evidence relating to the matters set out in s 281 of the MRA I consider the most appropriate guidance for the determination of compensation is provided by relevant Court determinations from within the Georgetown mining district.

10. [10]
    Fortuitously, the determination by Member PA Smith in ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry [2015] QLC 22 (ERO Georgetown) was undertaken following a contested hearing which included expert evidence tested by cross examination, full submissions and a site inspection.  The relevant land, like the subject, was used for grazing purposes and also located within the Georgetown mining district.   Compensation was determined at $17 per hectare per annum in respect of 4 ha of grazing land.  It should be noted that an amount of $2 of this amount was attributable to the impact of the mining tenure upon tourism activities carried out upon the subject land in that case. 

Determination

11. [11]
    After consideration of the referral documents provided by DNRM and being guided by the recent determination in ERO Georgetown I consider that $15 per hectare per annum is fair and reasonable compensation in respect of the mining area of ML 30225 and $7.50 per hectare per annum fair and reasonable for the access area of ML 30224. The areas in each case will be rounded to the next full hectare. An additional 10% will be added pursuant to s 281(4)(e) of the MRA in respect of the compulsory nature of the grant.

12. [12]
    The calculation in respect of each lease are set out as follows:

MRA195-15 re ML 30224

Area covered by access – 1 ha (rounded) @ $7.50 per ha       = $7.50 per annum

add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant @ 10%     = $  .75 per annum

Total                                                                               = $8.25 per annum

MRA242-16 re ML 30225

Area covered by mining – 1 ha (rounded) @ $15.00 per ha    = $15.00 per annum

add s 281(4)(e) re: compulsory nature of grant @ 10%         = $ 1.50  per annum

Total                                                                               = $16.50 per annum

13. [13]
    Given the 10 year duration of the leases and the quite modest sums determined I intend to order that the total compensation for the period of grant be paid within 1 month of the grant of the mining lease in each case.

Orders

1. In respect of ML 30224 compensation is determined in the total sum of Eighty-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($82.50).
2. In respect of ML 30225 compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred and Sixty-Five Dollars ($165.00).
3. The applicant is to pay compensation to the respondents the amount set out in Orders 1 and 2 hereof within one (1) month of the issue of ML 30224 and ML 30225 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

GJ SMITH

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR OF THE LAND COURT