Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited
[2018] QLC 5
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited[2018] QLC 5
- Add to List
Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited[2018] QLC 5
Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited[2018] QLC 5
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd v Arcturus Downs Limited [2018] QLC 5 |
PARTIES: | Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd (applicant) |
| v
|
Arcturus Downs Limited | |
| (respondent) |
FILE NO: | MRA138-14 |
DIVISION: | General division |
PROCEEDING: | General application |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 March 2018, ex tempore |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | 2 March 2018 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
MEMBER: | PG Stilgoe |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – MOTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – whether the Land Court of Queensland has the power to make a compensation determination prior to a judgment being handed down in an application for mining lease – where final submissions have not been heard in the mining lease application – where expert evidence has not been filed in the compensation application – whether in the circumstances the Land Court should make a compensation determination in a hypothetical case Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), s 268(6) Drake Coal Pty Ltd & Anor v MacNicol [2011] QLC 9 Swift Australian Co (Pty) Limited v South British Insurance Co Ltd [1970] VR 368 |
APPEARANCES: | Mr J Minchinton (solicitor), Sparke Helmore Lawyers, for the applicant Ms DA Skennar QC, Alroe & O'Sullivans Solicitors, for the respondent |
- [1]I have before me draft directions for the progress of a compensation hearing in a dispute between Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd and Arcturus Downs Limited. I have heard the mining objection hearing between those two parties and the timetable for submissions has not yet been completed. Obviously, therefore, I have not made a decision in the mining objections hearing.
- [2]The applicant, Springsure Creek Coal Pty Ltd, is urging me to make directions in the mining compensation hearing which result in a hearing of that dispute some time in June 2018 with the parties having to commit themselves to expert reports in or about early May of this year. Given the commitments that I have, it is unlikely that I will hand down a decision in the mining objections hearing before early May – possible, but unlikely.
- [3]Springsure Creek has said to me that I have a power to continue with the compensation hearing even though there has not been a decision in the objections hearing. I’ve been referred to s 268(6) and the decision of Drake Coal Pty Ltd & Anor v MacNicol [2011] QLC 9.
- [4]It is true that the decision in Drake Coal interprets s 268(6) as giving me a power to continue with the compensation hearing even though there has not been a decision in the objections hearing. It is also true that, in that case, the learned member referred to two previous cases where the Land and Resources Tribunal determined compensation in anticipation of the grant of a mining lease and they’re referred to in paragraphs 30 and 31 of that decision.
- [5]Ms Skennar, on behalf of Arcturus Downs, has urged a different interpretation of s 268(6) and that is that it carves out the question of compensation so that it does not have to be determined at the same time as the mining objections hearing. I prefer the interpretation given by the learned member in Drake: that s 268(6), in saying that nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent the question of compensation being determined by the Land Court pursuant to s 279 is, in fact, permission for the court to hear the question of compensation notwithstanding that the mining objection hearing has not been determined.
- [6]Notwithstanding that, there is the very real question of determining a hypothetical case and Ms Skennar has properly drawn my attention to Swift Australian Co (Pty) Limited v South British Insurance Co Ltd [1970] VR 368 and, in particular, to the comments on page 369.
- [7]This case is a case where, at the beginning of the hearing, Ms Skennar, on behalf of Arcturus Downs, raised a threshold issue of whether, in fact, the application was void from the get-go. In the face of that submission, I determined to proceed with the hearing because it had been adjourned twice before, I think, and the parties had expended considerable funds up to that point and the experts were ready.
- [8]This is a different case. The experts have not been nominated. They haven’t provided their experts’ reports. The parameters on which they may provide their experts’ reports are not yet clear because I haven’t handed down the decision (assuming that I find in favour of Springsure Creek). And as Ms Skennar has identified, there might well be the need for other experts to provide reports.
- [9]In my view, it is simply too speculative at this stage to make directions which will take this to a hearing some time in June 2018. I know that Springsure Creek is keen to get this matter resolved and, in its view, get on with the process of mining. I simply note that in the mining objections hearing, there have been a number of false starts, the fault of which I’m not ascribing to any party, but the mining objections hearing was set down for, I think, late last year and then again in December last year.
- [10]So it’s not as if this court should be under any pressure to determine a compensation hearing so that somebody can get on with the job of mining when two opportunities to have it resolved at an early point were vacated. I’m declining to make directions at this point. I will make a decision in the mining objections hearing as quickly as possible. I will list this matter for another review in June but on a date to be advised.
Orders:
- Orders 3 and 4 of the order dated 28 November 2017 are vacated.
- The matter be listed for a review on a date to be advised.
- The Applicant is to pay the Respondents costs of and incidental to this review as agreed or to be assessed within fourteen (14) days of this order.
PG STILGOE
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT