Vymetal v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation
[2025] QLC 1
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
- Vymetal v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation[2025] QLC 1
- Add to List
Vymetal v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation[2025] QLC 1
Vymetal v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation[2025] QLC 1
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Vymetal v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation [2025] QLC 1 |
PARTIES: | Lukas Vymetal (applicant) v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation (respondent) |
FILE NO: | MRA011-24 |
PROCEEDING: | Determination of compensation payable for grant of mining claim |
DELIVERED ON: | 8 January 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | Submissions closed 21 November 2024 |
HEARD AT: | On the papers |
MEMBER: | JR McNamara |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant has applied for the grant of a mining claim – where the mining claim involves metal detecting – whether and if so, what compensation is payable under s 85 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85 |
APPEARANCES: | Not applicable |
Background
- [1]A mining claim cannot be granted or renewed unless compensation between the miner and any affected landholder is agreed or determined by the Land Court.[1]
- [2]Lukas Vymetal has applied for the grant of mining claim MC300441 over an area of 0.9520ha on Bonny Glen Station. Access to the mining claim on Bonny Glen Station is approximately 2.1ha (7km by 3m). Bonny Glen is owned by the Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation (‘GJAC’). GJAC lodged an objection to the grant but did not elect to be an active party in the objection hearing which occurred on 4 September 2024 in Atherton. The hearing proceeded because there were other active objectors, neighbouring landowners Vic and Mary Inverardi. Access to the proposed mining claim will traverse a small area of the Inverardis’ property. Many of the issues of concern to the GJAC in their objection were also raised by the Inverardis and considered by me at the hearing. The ‘objection decision’ was delivered on 4 October 2024.[2] I recommended that MC300441 be granted subject to the following conditions:
- 1.The holder of MC300441 must use existing access points, roads or tracks to enter the landholder’s land, unless alternative access is negotiated with the landholder;
- 2.The holder of MC300441 must use the landholder’s land in a way that minimises disturbance to people, livestock and property;
- 3.If in carrying out activities associated with MC300441, the holder of MC300441 becomes aware of any potential adverse impact, caused by the activities, on the landholder’s livestock or property, they must immediately notify the landholder of the potential impact;
- 4.The holder of MC300441 must, after using a gate on the landholder’s land, return the gate to its original position unless advised otherwise by the landholder.
- [3]Mr Vymetal applied to the court to decide the compensation the Inverardis were entitled to. Having received written submissions from Mr Vymetal and the Inverardis, I decided compensation on 20 December 2024 in Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 31.
- [4]I am now to decide the compensation that the GJAC is entitled to for the impact the activities on the mining claim and access to the mining claim might have on Bonny Glen Station.
- [5]Recently I also made a compensation decision in respect of another mining proposal on Bonny Glen Station, in De Roma v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation [2024] QLC 30 (‘De Roma’). The circumstances in that matter are different. The parties had had some constructive discussions and some aspects were agreed in principle, however there were logistical difficulties in having any agreement considered and executed – which is why a decision of the court became necessary. There are, as discussed below, factual bases to distinguish that matter and this.
The Mining Claim
- [6]The proposed term of the mining claim is 10 years.[3] I describe the activities proposed on the mining claim in the objection decision.
- [7]Mr Vymetal’s compensation statement is one paragraph:
“In matter of land compensation for the mining claim MC300441 my offer is as follows:
As my claim MC300441 is under 1ha in total, my offer is to pay compensation for diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land and access, including administration cost and 10% GST rounded to $50AUD per year”.
- [8]On 20 November 2024, the GJAC responded to Mr Vymetal’s compensation statement saying they were not satisfied with the offer of $50/year. GJAC contend that the access road area should be included and at a figure no less than $10/hectare. In its submission, the GJAC also noted a list of conditions it sought.
- [9]The task before me is solely to make a determination of compensation taking into consideration the criteria in s 85(5) of the MRA.
- [10]Neither party has provided me with evidence to support its compensation position. Neither party’s submissions substantively address the criteria in s 85(5) of the MRA.
- [11]There is nothing before me to suggest that there will be any deprivation of possession of the surface of the land of the owner.
- [12]MC300441 is a proposed hand mining claim which Mr Vymetal intends to work by “metal detecting, dry blowing, sluicing and panning”.[4] There is no evidence before me to suggest that these activities, or anything else proposed on the mining claim, will result in diminution of the value of the land. There is also no evidence that there will be any severance of the land, or that loss or expense will arise.
- [13]The criteria most relevant appears to be the diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land and surface rights of access should the mining claim be granted. Mr Vymetal says that his offer of $50/year encompasses both of these criteria.
- [14]In De Roma, I found that a rate of $20/ha for compensation for a mining lease area was not unreasonable where the leases were on Bonny Glen’s primary grazing paddock which encompasses primary permanent water points, were less than a kilometre from the homestead and would exclude the use of a long-term permanent lick shed and trapping site. There is no evidence before me which describes the likely impact on the use and enjoyment of Bonny Glen Station by the GJAC should MC300441 be granted.
- [15]In other decisions involving Bonny Glen Station and the GJAC,[5] I have determined compensation at a rate of $10/ha for both access and mining areas to be ‘not unrealistic’. In the absence of evidence which suggests that compensation should be as high as that determined in De Roma, I have no basis to conclude that compensation should be greater than $10/ha. I apply this rate to the mining claim area (0.9520ha) for diminution of use made of the land and to the access area (2.1ha). I add 10% to the rate of $10/ha which brings the total rate to $11/ha.
- [16]In total, the area of MC300441 is 3.052 ha which I round to 3.1ha. Compensation is therefore $34.10 per annum.
Orders
- 1. The applicant must pay to the Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation compensation in respect of MC300441 as follows:
- (a)Thirty-four dollars and ten cents ($34.10) per annum;
- (b)The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(a) to the Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation within one (1) month of the grant of MC300441 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing and Regional and Rural Development and then annually on the day of the grant.
Footnotes
[1] Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 85 (‘MRA’).
[2] Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 20.
[3] Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 20 [8].
[4] Vymetal v Inverardi [2024] QLC 20 [25].
[5] McFarlane v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation [2023] QLC 9; Lynch v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation [2022] QLC 18; Tempo 3 Pty Ltd v Gummi Junga Aboriginal Corporation [2021] QLC 34.