Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QLC
  3. 2024
  4. Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton - [2024] QLC 18

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton[2024] QLC 18

Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton[2024] QLC 18

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton & Ors [2024] QLC 18

PARTIES:

Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd

ACN 637 527 309

(applicant)

v

Colin Easton, Margaret Easton, and Graham Easton

(non-active objectors)

and

Roslyn Grant and Michael Grant

(non-active objectors)

FILE NO:

MRA080-23

DIVISION:

General Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of application for mining lease and objections

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

17 September 2024

Written submissions closed 21 June 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

PRESIDENT:

PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:

  1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that MLA 100330 be approved.
  1. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – where there are objections to a mining lease application – where the objections raise issues about access to property, loss of amenity, and environmental impacts – where objectors did not elect to be active parties – where objections are broad and unparticularised – where the Court must consider the objections, the statutory criteria, and human rights impacts – whether the Court should recommend the application for a mining lease be approved

HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in its administrative capacity – where public entities are required to properly consider human rights relevant to their decisions – where the applicant contends that property rights and the right to privacy would not be affected by the grant of the lease – whether human rights would be engaged and limited by the grant of the mining lease

Human Rights Act 2019 s 24, s 25, s 28, s 58

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 269

Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 s 49

Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group (No 4) [2021] QLC 22, applied

Re Aradon Pty Ltd [2001] QLRT 35, applied

Re Kenneth James Willis [2001] QLRT 29, applied

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd [2020] QLC 33, applied

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, applied

APPEARANCES:

AR Hellewell (instructed by MinterEllison) for the applicant

  1. [1]
    Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd operates a mine adjoining the town of Ravenswood, about 90 kilometres east of Charters Towers. It is a substantial mine that has operated for 37 years.
  1. [2]
    Ravenswood now wishes to expand the mine. It has submitted an expansion program that re-mines the former Buck Reef West and Sarsfield/Nolans open pits, increases the size of the processing plant, constructs a new crushing and benefaction plant, and a new tailings storage facility.[1]
  1. [3]
    It proposes to achieve these changes through numerous mining lease applications of which this mining lease[2] (MLA) is one small piece. This application mainly concerns an internal mine road, a catch bund, and a noise bund.[3]
  1. [4]
    There were three objectors to this application: Roslyn and Michael Grant, Colin and Margaret Easton, and Graham Easton. The objectors did not take an active role in this Court proceeding. They have not filed any evidence, nor have they responded to Ravenswood’s material in any detailed way. Consequently, the objections I must consider are broad and non-specific.
  1. [5]
    Member Loos conducted an informal hearing on 17 September 2024 at which the objectors had an opportunity to discuss their objections with Ravenswood. I am satisfied that the objectors have been given ample opportunity to express their concerns.
  1. [6]
    Because there are objections, I am required to consider the matters set out in s 269 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA), any objections, and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (HRA). For the reasons outlined below I am satisfied that this application ought to be approved.

Section 269 of the MRA

  1. [7]
    The Court’s function is to hear the application and the objections to it, and, considering the statutory criteria, make a recommendation to the ultimate decision maker. Section 269(4) of the MRA sets out the statutory criteria the Court must consider.
  1. [8]
    I should not approach s 269(4) of the MRA as a “checklist” requiring Ravenswood to meet every requirement to secure a positive recommendation. Instead, I must consider and weigh each of those matters in reaching an overall conclusion and recommendation.[4]

Section 269(4)(a) – Compliance with provisions of the MRA

  1. [9]
    David Mackay, Ravenswood’s general manager of operations, states that Ravenswood has complied with the provisions of the MRA.[5] I have examined the material filed in this matter and note that there is no evidence to contradict Mr Mackay. I am satisfied that there has been compliance with the provisions of the MRA.

Section 269(4)(b) – Area of land mineralised and other purposes appropriate

  1. [10]
    The area applied for is mineralised with a variety of ores: antimony, bismuth, copper, lead, silver, and zinc. Unsurprisingly, given the name of the applicant, the area is also mineralised with gold.[6]
  1. [11]
    More importantly, Ravenswood seeks the MLA for appropriate purposes that are ancillary to the mine: an internal mine road, a laydown area, a catch bund, and a noise bund.[7] This would facilitate the development of infrastructure which will reduce the noise and dust impacts of operational activities (such as blasting) on the nearby Ravenswood township and allow the north-eastward extension of the Sarsfield Pit footprint.[8]
  1. [12]
    The area of land proposed is appropriate for the proposed uses.

Section 269(4)(c) – Acceptable level of development

  1. [13]
    Where the land applied for is mineralised, there must be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within that area.
  1. [14]
    Mr Mackay states that the supporting infrastructure identified in the MLA will facilitate mining for the Ravenswood expansion project and assist with limiting impacts on the township. The grant will also allow for the future realisation of the mineralised nature of the land.[9]
  1. [15]
    I am satisfied that the MLA would be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the application area.

Section 269(4)(d) – Appropriate size and shape

  1. [16]
    The proposed area of the MLA is approximately 13 ha and is contained within Ravenswood’s existing exploration permits (14778 and 15099).[10] I accept Mr Mackay’s evidence that the proposed area covers the minimum size and shape necessary to adequately cover the cut-back of the Sarsfield pit and construct the infrastructure required to facilitate the cut-back.[11]

Section 269(4)(e) – The term sought is appropriate

  1. [17]
    Ravenswood seeks a term of 16 years which would extend the life of the mine by at least 14 years.[12] Mr Mackay states that the term sought is appropriate because it facilitates Ravenswood’s mine plan, maximises resource extraction, and allows time for rehabilitation. I accept that evidence.

Section 269(4)(f) – Necessary financial and technical capabilities

  1. [18]
    Mr Mackay has annexed a statement from Andrew Price, Ravenswood’s chief financial officer, in which he “confirms” that Ravenswood has access to the required/necessary funding for the project.[13] While this evidence is not ideal, there is no evidence to suggest anything to the contrary.
  1. [19]
    I accept Mr Mackay’s evidence as to the technical capabilities of the company to carry on mining operations as proposed.[14] 
  1. [20]
    I therefore accept that Ravenswood has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to pursue the operations sought in this application.

Section 269(4)(g) – Past performance

  1. [21]
    The material provided to the Court suggests that Ravenswood has a good record of past performance. It holds 38 existing mining leases and there appears to be no evidence of non-compliance or action taken under the MRA against the company or any of its directors.[15]
  1. [22]
    Ravenswood has received and paid three penalty infringement notices (PINs) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.[16] Mr Mackay states, and I accept, that Ravenswood has implemented significant additional controls following the receipt of the PINs.[17]
  1. [23]
    There is nothing to suggest that Ravenswood’s past performance provides a proper basis to recommend the refusal of the application.

Section 269(4)(h) – Any disadvantage to holders of exploration permits and mineral development licenses

  1. [24]
    Mr Mackay states that there are no relevant overlapping tenements held by a third party.[18] I am satisfied that there is no evidence of any disadvantage to holders of exploration permits or mineral development licenses arising from the grant of the MLA.

Section 269(4)(i) – Sound land use management

  1. [25]
    On the material before me, I am satisfied that the use and proposed rehabilitation of the land the subject of the MLA accords with the principles of sound land use management.

Section 269(4)(j) – Extent of environmental impacts

  1. [26]
    Ravenswood submits that the activities will be managed under a comprehensive and carefully developed environmental authority (the EA). It says the EA, including the rehabilitation requirements, will place strict limits on the environmental impacts caused by the mining activities the subject of the MLA.[19]
  1. [27]
    However, the objectors have raised concerns about impacts on water and air quality.

Water quality

  1. [28]
    The objectors say that Sandy Creek and Kakadu Creek (also known as Nolan's Gully) are "areas of high concern" in relation to water quality impacts.
  1. [29]
    Michael Limpus, Ravenswood’s environment, approvals and community manager, notes that Sandy Creek and Kakadu Creek are not located in the MLA catchment. He states that the MLA area drains to a part of Elphinstone Creek, which is not used for the town water supply system.[20]
  1. [30]
    Mr Limpus also states that any potential impacts on groundwater would be negligible.[21] He annexed comprehensive hydrogeology reports prepared by Big Dog Hydrogeology.[22] Those reports concluded that the incremental risks to groundwater were low. The reports were informed by data from 200 bores. Big Dog also noted the ongoing groundwater monitoring requirements under the EA.
  1. [31]
    As to the effects on surface water, Ravenswood provided reports from Tropwater and Engeny. Tropwater designed a receiving environment monitoring program[23] and analysed the surface water impacts of the proposal.[24]  Engeny concluded that impacts to surface water are expected to be insignificant because there is sufficient storage capacity within the water management system to contain inflows during wet periods, there were no incremental impacts expected, and the residual voids will continue to act as groundwater sinks.[25]
  1. [32]
    Despite the objectors’ misgivings, I can find no basis for a recommendation against the proposal on water quality grounds.

Air quality

  1. [33]
    The objectors have concerns about increased dust arising from the grant of the MLA.
  1. [34]
    Ravenswood engaged Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd to evaluate the impact of the proposed Buck Reef West Stage 4 (BRW) works (which includes the MLA as it is part of the Sarsfield Pit) on air quality.[26]
  1. [35]
    Katestone concluded that if the pit is expanded:
  1. sensitive receptors in the northeast will be, at most, 40m closer to the pit;
  1. there will be no changes in distance to the pit from receptors to the northwest or north; and
  1. even though the Sarsfield waste rock dump will be 60-100m closer to eastern receptors it will maintain a 1.1km separation.[27]
  1. [36]
    Katestone noted that the noise bund will be extended to adjoin the existing Sarsfield bund, running along the northern edge of the pit area to maintain a shield between mining and sensitive receptors.[28]
  1. [37]
    Katestone identified four strategies that have been implemented to reduce noise and dust. It concluded that, if these strategies are followed, the proposed extension will not cause a significant increase in adverse impacts to air quality.[29]
  1. [38]
    Mr Mackay stated that Ravenswood will continue to implement those measures.[30]

Noise and vibration impacts

  1. [39]
    The objectors say that the MLA will cause ‘even more noise and vibration.’
  1. [40]
    Ravenswood point out that the MLA is a very small part of a much larger operation and has minimal impacts (if any) beyond those that are already occurring and conditioned under the EA.
  1. [41]
    It points out that the key purpose of the MLA is to allow the extension of an existing noise bund, the effect of which is intended to reduce the noise impacts on the Ravenswood township.[31]
  1. [42]
    Ravenswood engaged VMS Australia Pty Ltd to evaluate and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed amendment. VMS concluded that the predicted noise level from the proposed amendments will comply with the approved EA noise limit during day, evening, and night-time periods under neutral weather conditions.[32]
  1. [43]
    VMS identified that the night-time operation has the potential to generate noise emissions above the EA night-time noise limit under adverse weather conditions, but that this could be addressed through appropriate noise management (i.e. equipment shutdowns).
  1. [44]
    VMS noted that Ravenswood had developed and implemented a real-time noise monitoring and real-time response protocol to ensure the approved EA noise limit would be achieved at the privately owned receivers.[33]
  1. [45]
    The EA includes Conditions D1 to D9 which address noise and vibration. Ravenswood must manage noise levels in accordance with the project approved noise limits specified in Table D2 of the EA. Under condition D9, Ravenswood must develop and implement a blast monitoring program to monitor compliance with the blasting noise limit.
  1. [46]
    I am satisfied that the noise and vibration impacts, should any arise, will be appropriately managed.
  1. [47]
    I am satisfied that the objectors’ concerns about environmental impacts have been addressed and are not sufficient to refuse to recommend the grant of the application.

Section 269(4)(k) and (l) – Public right and interest & any good reason to refuse

  1. [48]
    Sections 269(4)(k) and (l) require me to consider the impacts upon the public right and interest and whether any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the MLA.
  1. [49]
    Ravenswood submits that the grant of the MLA will advance the public interest by offering considerable economic and social benefits to the Ravenswood community and Queensland, including:
  1. the provision of significant local employment opportunities (450 operational employees) and opportunities for local businesses;
  1. being central to the economy of the Ravenswood township. Ravenswood has created a Community Investment Program for local residents, local businesses, not-for-profit or community organisations or education facilities, which provides grants, sponsorships, and donations to community initiatives;
  1. contributing significant amounts to the local community through support of local organisations, donations, sponsorships, tourism development and events including support for the Royal Flying Doctor service, and the publication of the 'Ravenswood Roundup';
  1. an estimated $530 million in royalties to Queensland over the life of the mine; and
  1. its local, regional, and state expenditure, including nearly $100 million in 2023 within the local region and a further $200 million in 2023 in the rest of Queensland.[34]

Traffic and transport impacts

  1. [50]
    The objectors have raised general concerns about access to neighbouring properties because of interruptions to Evlinton Road, which traverses the MLA.
  1. [51]
    Ravenswood has entered into a compensation agreement with the Charters Towers Regional Council which provides that Evlinton Road will be the subject of temporary road closures and restrictions of access during blasting, provided that:
  1. Ravenswood gives the Council 12 hours' notice of the temporary road closure or restriction;
  1. the temporary road closure or restriction meets acceptable duration and frequency thresholds; and
  1. Ravenswood follows a temporary road closure protocol which is annexed to the compensation agreement.[35]
  1. [52]
    The objectors submit that the periodic closure of Evlinton Road, will prevent access to and from Colin and Margaret Easton’s house. Their house is described as Evlinton Station on Sandy Creek Road. A simple search of Google Maps shows that closure of Evlinton Road does not prevent access to their house but does eliminate a short cut to town.
  1. [53]
    To be fair to the objectors, their main complaint about access is that Evlinton Road, a public road, will be within the MLA area. Graham Easton is concerned with access to the airstrip and four other private properties (none of which are owned by an objector). I cannot see how a temporary closure of Evlinton Road would prevent access to the airstrip. The trip may be longer, by a matter of minutes, but it is still possible.
  1. [54]
    Mr and Mrs Grant are concerned that Evlinton Rd will be mined in the future. Ravenswood does not intend to relocate Evlinton Road unless it becomes necessary to do so, and instead will comply with the temporary road closure protocol as agreed with the Council.[36]
  1. [55]
    Ravenswood expects that temporary road closures will only be required when blasting occurs in the north-eastern corner of the Sarsfield Pit, which is the closest point to Evlinton Road.[37]
  1. [56]
    I also accept the evidence that the mining will eventually get deep enough in the north-eastern corner that temporary closure will no longer be required.[38]
  1. [57]
    Notwithstanding this, the Council and Ravenswood have agreed that Ravenswood must not restrict third party access to Evlinton Road on more than 12 occasions in a calendar month and, except where it is necessary or desirable to do so for safety reasons or to avoid unnecessary damage to property, Ravenswood must not restrict third party access to Evlinton Road for longer than 30 minutes at a time.[39]
  1. [58]
    In light of the compensation agreement and Ravenswood’s agreement to comply with it, I am satisfied that the traffic issues which may arise from any temporary closure of the road have been addressed appropriately.

Mental health impacts

  1. [59]
    The objectors’ concerns about mental health impacts are unparticularised.
  1. [60]
    Mr Mackay states that Ravenswood has implemented a comprehensive complaints process as well as providing local emergency health services to the community through Ravenswood’s clinical health team and supporting the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Mr Mackay also deposes to Ravenswood’s commitment to maintaining a positive relationship with the Ravenswood community and its residents.
  1. [61]
    I am satisfied that any mental health impacts have been addressed appropriately.

Section 269(4)(m) – Appropriate land use

  1. [62]
    Ravenswood submit that the use of the land subject to the MLA will be appropriate because:
  1. the infrastructure proposed under the MLA is necessary to reduce the noise and dust impacts of operational activities (such as blasting) on the nearby Ravenswood township; and
  1. the MLA is proposed as part of the Ravenswood Expansion Project, which will extend the life of the Mine by about 14 years. As a key employer of Ravenswood residents, the continued operation of the Mine is an important part of the Ravenswood community.[40]
  1. [63]
    The objectors raised issues about the impact upon planning in and near to the MLA area. They have raised concerns about the impact of the MLA on the 'dynamic' of the township, the devaluation of property, and the future health and sustainability of the Ravenswood community and surrounds.
  1. [64]
    Ravenswood is located within a Priority Living Area (PLA) under the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014. Before carrying out any activities pursuant to the MLA, Ravenswood required a Regional Interests Development Application (RIDA) approval.
  1. [65]
    In deciding the application for the RIDA Approval, the decision-maker was required to ensure that the location, nature, and conduct of the proposed activities are compatible with the planned future for the PLA.[41]
  1. [66]
    The decision-maker was satisfied that these matters were met and issued the RIDA Approval.[42] It is not the Court’s role to assess the merits of that decision.
  1. [67]
    Ravenswood has committed to expanding the capacity of its mining village to mitigate the potential impacts and demands on the Ravenswood township that the requirement for the 250 additional workers needed for the overall REP might have.[43]
  1. [68]
    Ravenswood is, and has always been, a gold mining town. That fact informs the 'dynamic' of the township and the future health and sustainability of the Ravenswood community and its surrounds.
  1. [69]
    It is submitted, and I accept, that I ought to be satisfied that any planning impacts have been appropriately dealt with in existing approvals.

Human rights

  1. [70]
    In making an objections decision, this Court is a public entity acting in an administrative capacity and is therefore subject to s 58(1) of the HR Act.[44]
  1. [71]
    The Court has articulated a five-step process in applying human rights.[45] The Court’s task in making an objections decision is to properly consider human rights relevant to the decision, not to make a legal ruling that the MLA would not be compatible with human rights.[46] I adopt that approach here.

Property rights

  1. [72]
    Section 24(2) of the HR Act states that a person must not be arbitrarily deprived of their property. Property is “any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future, vested or contingent, or tangible or intangible) in real or personal property of any description (including money), and includes things in action.”[47]
  1. [73]
    Ravenswood submits that no property rights are engaged by the grant of the MLA. I agree. The traffic implications of the proposal are not sufficient to invoke a consideration of property rights.

Right to privacy

  1. [74]
    Section 25(a) of the HR Act states that a person has the right not to have their home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.
  1. [75]
    The concept of ‘home’ is to be approached in a “common-sense and pragmatic way” and requires “sufficient and continuous links” with a place to establish that it is a person’s home.[48] Although I have no detail, I am satisfied that the objectors have established that they have rights to privacy at their homes.
  1. [76]
    The noise, dust, and vibration from the proposal have the potential to affect the objectors’ right to privacy. I have considered that potential above and I am satisfied that there is no, or minimal breach of privacy rights. The MLA is a very small part of a much larger operation which has been occurring in the Ravenswood area for decades and the proposal will have minimal impacts (if any) beyond those that are already occurring and conditioned under the EA.
  1. [77]
    The HR Act also requires me to consider any effect on the cultural rights of Aboriginal peoples.[49] I note Mr Mackay’s assertion that Ravenswood has established a positive, collaborative relationship with the Birriah People, the traditional owners of the region where the mine is situated.[50]

Conclusion

  1. [78]
    The objectors’ concerns are clearly sincerely held. They live very near or immediately adjoining the current mine and the proposed expanded mine area. They perceive that their lifestyle and amenity will be affected.
  1. [79]
    Apart from the potential inconvenience from the temporary closures of Evlinton Road, the objectors’ concerns are as readily attributable to the existing operation as they might be to the proposal. The evidence before me indicates that the proposal will not result in any greater impact than they currently experience.
  1. [80]
    I am satisfied that there is nothing in s 269(4), the objections, or the HR Act that would justify a recommendation to refuse this proposal.

Orders

  1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that MLA 100330 be approved.
  2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

Footnotes

[1]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, para 14.

[2]ML 100330.

[3]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, paras 17 and 18.

[4]Re Kenneth James Willis [2001] QLRT 29, [43]; Re Aradon Pty Ltd [2001] QLRT 35, [40], [44].

[5]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, paras 39 to 41.

[6]Ibid para 42.

[7]Ibid para 43.

[8]Ibid para 44.

[9]Ibid para 46.

[10]Ibid para 47(a).

[11]Ibid paras 47 to 48, exhibit ‘DJM-02’ pages 25 to 30.

[12]Ibid para 49, exhibit ‘DJM-02’ pages 39 to 46.

[13]Ibid exhibit ‘DJM-02’ pages 17 to 19.

[14]Ibid paras 51 to 58, exhibit ‘DJM-02’ pages 37 to 38 and 84 to 85.

[15]Ibid paras 60 to 61.

[16]Ibid paras 63 to 64, exhibit ‘DJM-15’.

[17]Ibid paras 65 to 66.

[18]Ibid para 67.

[19]Ibid paras 69 to 70.

[20]Affidavit of Mr Michael John Limpus, para 10.

[21]Ibid para 14.

[22]Ibid exhibit ‘MJL-03’.

[23]Ibid exhibit ‘MLJ-07’.

[24]Ibid exhibit ‘MLJ-09’.

[25]Ibid para 27.

[26]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, para 81.

[27]Ibid para 83.

[28]Ibid exhibit ‘DJM-16’.

[29]Ibid para 89, ‘DJM-16’ page 3.

[30]Ibid para 91.

[31]Ibid para 96.

[32]Ibid paras 97 to 102, exhibits ‘DJM-18’ and ‘DJM-19’.

[33]Ibid exhibit ‘DJM-19’ at para 8.2.1.

[34]Ibid paras 11 and 73.

[35]Ibid para 111.

[36]Ibid para 112.

[37]Ibid para 116.

[38]Ibid.

[39]Ibid para 114.

[40]Ibid para 77.

[41]The criteria considered by the decision maker is located at s 49(1) of the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014.

[42]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, para 119; RPI22/027 Ravenswood Gold – Ravenswood Gold Mine.

[43]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, para 122.

[44]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd [2020] QLC 33, [92].

[45]Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group (No 4) [2021] QLC 22, [55]-[57].

[46]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, [1705].

[47]Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Sch 1.

[48]Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, [1625].

[49]HR Act s 28(2).

[50]Affidavit of Mr David John Mackay, para 11(d)(iv).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Ravenswood Gold Pty Ltd v Easton

  • MNC:

    [2024] QLC 18

  • Court:

    QLC

  • Judge(s):

    PG Stilgoe OAM

  • Date:

    27 Sep 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group Inc (No 4) [2021] QLC 22
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QLC 22
Cite 2 - [2021] QLC 22
Re Aradon Pty Ltd [2001] QLRT 35
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QLRT 35
Cite 2 - [2001] QLRT 35
Re Kenneth James Willis [2001] QLRT 29
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QLRT 29
Cite 2 - [2001] QLRT 29
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd [2020] QLC 33
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QLC 33
Cite 2 - [2020] QLC 33
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QLC 21
Cite 2 - [2022] QLC 21
Cite 3 - [2022] QLC 21

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.