Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QLC
  3. 2025
  4. Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd - [2025] QLC 21

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

Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd[2025] QLC 21

Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd[2025] QLC 21

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2025] QLC 21

PARTIES:

Matthew Simon Vaughan

(applicant)

v

Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd

(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA005-25 (ML 20409)

PARTIES:

Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd

(applicant)

v

Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd

(respondent)

FILE NO:

MRA006-25 (ML 20532)

PROCEEDING:

Determination of compensation payable for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD ON:

19 June 2025 and 1 August 2025

HEARD AT:

Atherton and Brisbane

MEMBER:

JR McNamara

ORDERS:

  1. In respect of the application for renewal of ML 20409, compensation is determined as follows:
    1. The applicant must pay the respondent Four Hundred and Seventy-Six Dollars and Eighty-Five Cents ($476.85) representing the deprivation of possession of the area of ML 20409 that is over Palmerville Station, which amount is inclusive of the statutory 10% uplift;
    2. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($370.88) per annum for administrative expenses.
    3. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(a) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    4. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(b) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development and then annually on the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
  2. In respect of the application for renewal of ML 20532, compensation is determined as follows:
    1. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Three Dollars and Forty Cents ($3,493.40) representing the deprivation of possession of the total area of ML 20532, which amount is inclusive of the statutory 10% uplift;
    2. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($370.88) per annum for administrative expenses; and
    3. The applicant must pay the respondent an amount no greater than the lowest amount agreed to and paid by any of the miners on mining leases surrounding or near to ML 20532 who have entered into a compensation agreement with COTP, on invoice, for work completed around and/or within ML 20532 as part of the savanna burning project, but in any case an amount no greater than One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($1,450) in any year.
    4. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 2(a) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    5. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 2(b) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development and then annually on the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    6. The applicant must pay the amount determined in accordance with order 2(c) within 30 days of receipt of an itemised invoice.

CATCHWORDS:

ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – MINING FOR MINERALS – COMPENSATION – where the applicant miner applied for the renewal of two mining leases on the respondent’s land – where the first applicant is the sole director of the second applicant – where the activities on the mining leases involve gold mining – where the parties disagreed on the amount of compensation the applicants should pay the respondent – where the Court accepted the calculation of the rate per hectare of the deprivation of possession or diminution of use of the mining lease area calculated in other matters on the subject land – whether the applicants are required to compensate the respondent for weed inspections – whether the applicants are required to compensate the respondent for backburning – whether the applicants are required to compensate the respondent for water testing – whether the applicants are required to compensate the respondent for administrative costs – whether and if so, what compensation is payable under s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989

Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 281, s 403

Guernier v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2021] QLC 13

Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 36

Pickering v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2025] QLC 20

APPEARANCES:

F Thomas (agent), Mining Permit Services Qld, for the applicants

DA Quayle (instructed by South Geldard Lawyers) for the respondent

  1. [1]
    Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd (COTP) is the registered owner of Palmerville Station (Palmerville). I repeat here the introductory paragraphs from Pickering v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd[1] which was heard immediately before these matters.
  2. [2]
    Palmerville is a 134,000 ha 30 year rolling term leasehold property in the lower Cape York Peninsula. It comprises a mix of river/creek frontages, rising to an undulating ridge country and broken ranges. It is an operating grazing enterprise running about 5,000 head of grey Brahman cattle and an estimated 1,000 head of mixed clean-skin cattle.
  3. [3]
    As its name suggests Palmerville is traversed by the Palmer River and is fed by other creeks and streams including Dog Leg Creek. Roads, including Whites Creek-Maytown Road, Mulgrave-Palmerville Road and Palmerville-Laura Road provide access to Palmerville. 
  4. [4]
    Gold mining, exploration and fossicking has happened on and around the Palmer River for over 140 years. There are as many as 81 current mining leases on Palmerville alone, and 11 exploration tenements. The large Palmer Goldfield Resources Reserve[2] (the Resources Reserve) which is encased on three sides by Palmerville is also the subject of a significant number of mining and exploration tenements. The Resources Reserve also has attractions for tourists, in particular the remains of buildings and machinery from the 19th century “gold rush”.
  5. [5]
    There is currently no boundary fencing between Palmerville and the Resources Reserve.
  6. [6]
    Fossickers are welcomed onto Palmerville to camp and fossick in designated areas, subject to the agreement of COTP. By arrangement tourists can also visit, camp, fish and stay on the property in designated camping areas.
  1. [7]
    By commissioning annual savanna burning on Palmerville, COTP earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). ACCUs are monetised. The Western Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation (WYAC) through the Australian Carbon Foundation (ACF) is engaged by Diversified Agriculture (a wholly owned subsidiary of COTP) to carry out inspections, backburning and burning as part of a savanna burning project.[3]  

Hearings

  1. [8]
    On 18 and 19 June 2025 in Atherton I heard three mining compensation matters involving applicant miners and COTP. The application of Rai Pickering concerning Mining Lease (ML) 100207 was the first hearing on 18 June 2025.
  2. [9]
    The other two applications, the subject of this decision, were heard together on 19 June 2025. The applicants in these matters are Mr Matthew Vaughan and Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd (Prospect Hill). Mr Vaughan is the sole director of Prospect Hill. Mr Vaughan is a full-time miner and has lived on his camp on the Resources Reserve for 25 years.[4]
  1. [10]
    There was significant commonality in the evidence and key aspects of the compensation sought by COTP in each case. However, some evidence given in response to questions put to COTP Director, Mr Darren Pearson, by me in the Vaughan and Prospect Hill matters provided a more fulsome explanation of aspects of evidence concerning backburning. Conscious of avoiding inconsistency in decisions I reconvened the hearings concerning the three matters on 1 August 2025 in Brisbane and recalled Mr Pearson for a limited purpose.
  1. [11]
    This decision should be read in conjunction with Pickering v Chelsea on the Park. The subject matter of the compensation claimed is exactly the same. That is: biosecurity, backburning, water testing, and administrative expenses. The position of the parties in respect of that subject matter is the same. The proposed activities on the MLs are substantially the same. The differences relate to the size and location of the MLs.

The Mining Leases

  1. [12]
    There are two MLs the subject of these proceedings.
  2. [13]
    The first is ML 20409, held by Mr Vaughan in his personal capacity (the Vaughan ML). The lease was granted on 28 January 2014 and commenced on 1 February 2014 for a term of 10 years. The ML was granted with approved Environmental Authority EPVL 01368513.
  3. [14]
    As the lease term was due to expire on 31 January 2024, Mr Vaughan lodged an application for renewal with the Department of Resources on 30 November 2023 for another 10-year term. The Vaughan ML covers an area of 45.83 ha but, according to the applicant, only approximately 5 ha is situated on Palmerville.[5]
  4. [15]
    The second mining lease is ML 20532, held by Prospect Hill (the Prospect Hill ML). This lease was granted on 7 August 2014 and commenced on 1 September 2014, again, for a term of 10 years. The ML was granted with Environmental Authority EPSL 00279913.
  5. [16]
    The term expired on 31 August 2024 and an application for renewal was lodged on 8 August 2024 for a 10-year term. The Prospect Hill ML is 36.63 ha and is located wholly within Palmerville. Access to the ML is via the Resources Reserve with an area of access of approximately 2.28 ha.
  6. [17]
    Despite a significant amount of information exchanged and negotiations between the parties, Mr Vaughan, Prospect Hill and COTP were unable to agree compensation which prevents the renewal of both tenements.[6] On 20 January 2025, agent Ms Fiona Thomas, on behalf of both applicants, applied to the Land Court pursuant to s 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for a determination of compensation in respect of the Vaughan ML and the Prospect Hill ML.[7]

Activities on the MLs

  1. [18]
    In the applicant’s compensation statement for the Vaughan ML it states that the ML operation is for alluvial gold and silver ore mining, subject to the conditions in the applicant’s Environmental Authority.[8] As for the method of operations, the applicant says: “Creek wash is excavated using a 35-ton Hitachi excavator, the gravel is then loaded into a 6x6 A35c Volvo dump truck and transported to the plant site…”[9]
  2. [19]
    The prescribed purposes listed in the Resource Authority Public Report are living quarters/camp, treatment plant/mill site and water supply.
  3. [20]
    Operations on the Prospect Hill ML are described similarly. The prescribed purposes listed in the Resource Authority Public Report are living quarters/camp, tailings/settling dam, treatment plant/mill site, water supply and workshop/machinery/storage.
  4. [21]
    Despite the prescribed purpose saying that living quarters will be situated on both subject MLs, Mr Vaughan, in cross examination at the hearing, made it clear that it is not his intention to live on the Prospect Hill ML, other than taking a caravan there from time to time.[10] He owns a separate tenement in the Resources Reserve where he lives.
  5. [22]
    Mr Vaughan explained to the Court that despite the expiration of the current term of the ML, he has yet to commence mining works on the Prospect Hill ML.[11]
  6. [23]
    Mr Vaughan also said at the hearing that in the context of the two MLs, he will only work at one place at a time.[12]
  7. [24]
    In the applicants’ reply to the respondent’s response to each proposed compensation statement, in his affidavits, and in cross examination, Mr Vaughan makes it clear that he intends to stand on his understanding of rights contained in MRA s 403: COTP will not be allowed to enter the ML areas without consent.[13]
  8. [25]
    This position and Mr Vaughan’s proposed use of the ML areas makes it clear that the entire 5 ha of the Vaughan ML and 36.63 ha of the Prospect Hill ML will be affected should the MLs be renewed.

Compensation statements

  1. [26]
    In response to Court orders, in both matters: the applicant’s compensation statement, the respondent’s response; the applicant’s reply; an affidavit from Mr Pearson, an affidavit from Mr Vaughan and a reply affidavit from Mr Pearson, were exchanged and filed.[14]
  2. [27]
    The material filed in both applications is substantially the same, but for matters specific to the areas of and activities on each ML.
  3. [28]
    There are five issues over which the parties remained in dispute. They are the compensation payable to COTP pursuant to MRA s 281(3)(a)(i)-(iii) for the impact of the MLs on COTP; and the costs COTP might incur in relation to biosecurity, backburning, water testing and for administrative activities to be undertaken.

Compensation for deprivation of possession or diminution of use – s 281(3)(a)(i)-(iii)

  1. [29]
    In the written material, the applicants, at [9] of the applicants’ reply to the respondent’s response to the compensation statement in each matter, accept their compensation liability to be calculated on a per ha rate of $86.70, but discounted to 20% to reflect the area actively used at any time.[15]
  2. [30]
    A per ha rate of $86.70 was determined in two previous Land Court cases: Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd[16] (Kelly) and Guernier v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd[17] (Guernier). Both cases concerned compensation for MLs on Palmerville. The decisions are reasonably contemporary having been delivered in 2020 and 2021. Counsel for COTP submitted that compensation should be awarded to COTP at the rate of $86.70 per ha for the total area of the MLs.
  3. [31]
    For the reasons described in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park at [32]-[38] I accept $86.70 per ha as the appropriate rate for the purposes of determining compensation pursuant to s 281(3)(a)(i)-(iii) in respect of the renewal of the Vaughan ML and the Prospect Hill ML.
  4. [32]
    In closing submissions at the hearing, there was further discussion regarding the parties’ position in relation to this head of compensation. The parties agreed that compensation pursuant to s 281(3)(a)(i)-(iii) should be on the basis of 100% loss for the term of the leases at a rate of $86.70, as a one-off payment.
  5. [33]
    Based on the material filed and the evidence at the hearing, including Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill’s intention to deny COTP access to the ML area during the term of the leases without consent, I agree with the parties that compensation ought to be for the total loss of the 5 ha and 36.63 ha, respectively, for the full term of each ML, at a rate of $86.70 per ha, as a one-off payment.

Section 403

  1. [34]
    I repeat the observations I made at paragraphs [39]-[44] in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park concerning the meaning of s 403.  

Biosecurity

  1. [35]
    It was agreed and accepted that whereas “biosecurity” might concern a broad range of issues, in the context of these cases, it is about weeds.
  2. [36]
    Mr Vaughan also says that biosecurity risks on Palmerville are elevated since the property has been open to the public for: fossicking, metal detecting, camping, cars, trailers, caravans, quad bikes, and motor bikes; and as there are large sections of unfenced boundaries which allow cattle to traverse, potentially spreading weeds from neighbouring properties. COTP say that they have strict arrangements in place with visitors to Palmerville.
  3. [37]
    The position of COTP at the hearing was that Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill ought to meet the cost of two (2) biosecurity inspections of the areas affected by the MLs per annum (actual cost) within 30 days of invoice. This is due to the concern expressed by Mr Pearson that Mr Vaughan’s and Prospect Hill’s “proposal to excavate gravel from creek beds and transport it may cause noxious weeds to spread.”[18] Mr Pearson deposes that it costs the operators $750 plus GST to carry out each inspection.
  4. [38]
    It is not disputed that COTP is subject to certain biosecurity obligations as set out in the 23 May 2025 affidavits of COTP Director, Mr Pearson. Mr Pearson refers to the fact that COTP is a registered biosecurity entity, as is the property operator Diversified Agriculture (a wholly owned subsidiary of COTP) and as such is subject to the obligations imposed by the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld), the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 (Qld), and the Public Health Act 2005 (Qld).[19]
  5. [39]
    It is both a statutory and a mandatory condition of the Palmerville rolling term lease that the lessee must keep noxious plants on the land under control.
  6. [40]
    As I note in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, if the weeds are not “under control”, that is perhaps spreading or seeding, the condition would require something more than simply inspecting them. The miner’s obligation under the Environmental Authority is more specific, it is to prevent the spread of declared plants. The ‘action’ is to ensure vehicles and machinery are adequately cleaned.
  7. [41]
    Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill are subject to the conditions and obligations of their respective environmental authorities. The conditions for approval for both environmental authorities are mainly the standard conditions, with some variations under the headings “General” and “Heritage”.
  8. [42]
    Pursuant to the Environmental Authority: Eligibility criteria and standard conditions for ML activities—Version 2, Standard Condition A12 provides: The holder of the environmental authority must prevent the spread of declared plants by ensuring that all vehicles and machinery are adequately cleaned before taking the vehicles and machinery out of a declared plant area. 
  9. [43]
    Note 18 to the Condition says: Every precaution must be taken to ensure there is no dispersal of Parthenium weed or the seed of any other declared plant within the meaning of the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, as a result of mining or as a result of access to the area of the ML. 
  10. [44]
    Note 19 says: The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries provide Pest Fact sheets for declared plants in Queensland as well as clean down procedures for motor vehicles and machinery. For advice on declared plant areas contact the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or your Local Government.
  11. [45]
    It is not disputed that there are existing weeds on Palmerville.
  1. [46]
    Mr Vaughan says that biosecurity within his MLs is his own responsibility. Consequently, “no consent will be given to the landowner or the landowners’ associates … to enter and be upon the land for inspection of weeds.”[20] As noted above the Environmental Authority Standard Condition A12 requires wash down before exiting a (any) declared plant area. Note 18 goes a little further saying every precaution must be taken to ensure there is no dispersal of Parthenium weed or other declared plants as a result of mining. This is perhaps consistent with the general biodiversity obligation under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld). The general biodiversity obligation is that a person who deals with biosecurity matter and who ought reasonably to know that it poses or is likely to pose a biosecurity risk, has an obligation to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise the biosecurity risk. 
  1. [47]
    In his first affidavit in each matter Mr Pearson says at paragraph [23] that COTP “has prepared a biosecurity plan which sets out reasonable measures to prevent, control or stop the spread of biosecurity matter into, at or from Palmerville Station.”
  2. [48]
    As in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, the COTP Biosecurity Plan was exhibited to Mr Pearson’s affidavits.[21] It is the same “thin” document which is headed: “LPA On-Farm Biosecurity Plan template”. It is signed and dated 14 April 2020. The relevant part is Section 4: PESTS AND WEEDS. The “plan” at section 4.1 poses the question: Are there documented feral-animal, wildlife and weed-control programs in operation and do they include monitoring and management activities? In the third column a “yes” box is ticked. Some generic actions appear in column 2 under the heading: “Recommended practices”. They (the recommended practices) are: “Document feral-animal, wildlife and weed-control plans as required. Engage with neighbours and regional feral-animal, wildlife and weed control groups to maximise the effectiveness of your control programs”.
  3. [49]
    Completion of the template is intended “to reflect current farm biosecurity practices.”[22] While there is a “comments” column on the template, there are no comments entered nor any relevant “tools and resources” listed. I was not directed to any documented “weed-control plans”, weed-control programs, or weed-control “tools and resources”.
  4. [50]
    However, this “plan” does not set out any measures to prevent, control or stop the spread of biosecurity matter into, at or from Palmerville station.
  1. [51]
    To comply with COTP’s biosecurity plan and lease conditions Mr Pearson says that COTP “must conduct regular inspections around the Mining Lease area for noxious weeds.”[23] Despite saying that there are to his knowledge “noxious weeds present on Palmerville Station” and likely in the area of the MLs, Mr Pearson goes on to say that such an inspection would not occur in this way but for the ML(s). As I said in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, I find it difficult to reconcile this position. Were there to be no ML on the area surely it would risk offending the biosecurity plan and potentially breach a lease condition to not take weed control measures in a known infected area.
  1. [52]
    Mr Vaughan has also stated his intention to refuse entry to COTP and will not give consent to the landowner or landowners’ associates to enter and be upon the land for inspection of weeds. In those circumstances it was suggested that COTP would conduct weed inspections remotely. A weed inspection without conducting weed control measures seems to be a hollow exercise. The biosecurity plan talks of “weed-control plans” not simply inspections.
  2. [53]
    As I note in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, in the Guernier matter the Court had been furnished with an agronomy report, however the agronomists did not give oral evidence at the hearing. Their report stated what might seem obvious, that declared weeds require control and management strategies. The hearing member in that matter said at [17]: “They [the agronomists] say that the control program must include a simple half day inspection twice per year, once at the start of the wet season and once at the start of the dry season.” The best the hearing member could conclude was at [20]: “Presumably, they have good reasons for suggesting that both inspections are necessary.” I have less to work with here.
  3. [54]
    Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill say that they will take responsibility for weed control and management of the area of the MLs.
  4. [55]
    Despite the Land Court making an award of compensation for weed inspections in both Kelly and Guernier, and the uncertain ability of COTP to undertake weed inspections and weed control activities on the MLs because of Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill’s intention to deny access to COTP, I do not have sufficient evidence to order compensation for weed inspections in these cases.   

Backburning

  1. [56]
    As the COTP evidence and the applicant’s evidence in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park and in the Vaughan and Prospect Hill matters was effectively the same, my consideration and conclusions are mostly the same. 
  2. [57]
    It is not disputed that ML 20532 is within areas that would (but for its grant) be subject to COTP’s savanna burning project.[24] Only a 5 ha portion of ML 20409 is on Palmerville. It borders the Resources Reserve which in my view is relevant.
  3. [58]
    COTP say they should be compensated for the cost of backburning around each ML (on invoice), however, they do not seek compensation for the loss of ACCUs, if any, as a result of the activities on the MLs.
  4. [59]
    The basis upon which COTP say they should be compensated for backburning is the result of the additional expense incurred by the project because of the MLs. COTP say that because of the MLs additional cost and time is spent to backburn around them to protect life, property, plant and equipment (within the ML area).
  5. [60]
    Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill say that they are solely responsible to undertake backburning, if required, within the MLs’ boundaries and are the party responsible to protect their assets. Therefore, backburning around the MLs is unnecessary because their person, property, plant and equipment are protected. Mr Vaughan says in his affidavits that there is no requirement on COTP to ensure that the areas of the MLs are protected from the burning.[25]
  6. [61]
    Seasonal burning reduces fuel load and consequently wildfire risk which can cause significant physical damage to the property, and greater environmental harm. A greater volume of carbon is released into the atmosphere from wildfires than if seasonal burning controlled or limited wildfires. The reduction in the release of carbon has value.
  7. [62]
    As noted earlier, the WYAC is engaged by Diversified Agriculture (a wholly owned subsidiary of COTP) to carry out inspections, backburning and burning as part of a savanna burning project.[26] The ACF manage the work.[27]
  8. [63]
    In his 23 May 2025 affidavits, Mr Pearson says (based on a 15 January 2025 letter to Mr Pearson from ACF) the daily rate for a ranger is said to be $750, and the total cost for inspection and backburning is estimated to be $7,500 per annum. Mr Pearson’s affidavits say that Mr Vaughan and Prospect Hill must pay these costs only if and when COTP issues an invoice. “Adopting this approach will ensure that if WYAC rangers are required to inspect around the Mining Lease only, the cost passed on … will be the actual cost incurred by Chelsea.”[28]
  1. [64]
    My understanding of the arrangements was clarified through questioning while Mr Pearson was giving evidence at the 19 June 2025 hearing, which was the evidence the subject of the reconvened hearing on 1 August 2025.
  2. [65]
    What emerged from Mr Pearson’s evidence was that in addition to the ranger’s costs (estimated to be $7,500 per annum) would also be the cost of a helicopter (presumably helicopter and pilot hire) estimated to be approximately $7,000. This means that the full cost for the backburning of a single ML would be in the order of $14,500 per annum.
  3. [66]
    In his evidence Mr Pearson qualified this by saying that if the exercise was split between the other holders of MLs in the area the cost could be reduced. He is referring to a cost sharing exercise amongst holders of MLs – an arrangement which he says some ML holders with whom COTP have signed compensation agreements have entered.
  4. [67]
    In his evidence on 19 June 2025 Mr Pearson said that there are many MLs and compensation agreements with COTP. He said he “believe(d) there’s four or five compensation agreements adjoining Mr Vaughan … that are working in with us when the burning happens with the Western Yalanji Rangers that are undergoing compensation agreements.”[29] My understanding of the evidence was that the four or five compensation agreements adjoined ML 20532, the Prospect Hill ML. I am unaware of how many MLs and compensation agreements which include provisions concerning savanna burning surround or are near the Vaughan ML.
  5. [68]
    The clauses of any compensation agreements concerning the savanna burning project with other miners on Palmerville were not in evidence.
  6. [69]
    The savanna burning project commenced with registration in 2023, however “2024 was the first year of the project awarding any result”. It is not clear what that means, but Mr Pearson did say that “burning” had occurred in 2025. 
  7. [70]
    Mr Pearson’s evidence was clear however that while some areas of Palmerville might be burned every three or four years, there would be “an asset protection burn” each year, unless there were no assets to protect, in which case a burn (if any) could go through an area when needed (possibly every three or four years) without the additional “asset protection” backburning cost.

Conclusion - backburning

  1. [71]
    As I said in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, the respondent’s evidence generally was inadequate and incomplete. The only COTP witness was Mr Pearson. His affidavits annexed correspondence from a range of persons and organisations including some invoices issued to Diversified Agriculture from WYAC for ‘carbon burning assistance’ between 2023 and 2025.
  2. [72]
    There is no contractual arrangement between WYAC and COTP or Diversified Agriculture. WYAC invoice Diversified Agriculture directly and COTP accept the hourly rates and workforce numbers for seasonal burning activity as determined by the ACF. The location and timing of seasonal burning might be agreed between COTP and WYAC – but seemingly not the budget. 
  3. [73]
    The invoices annexed to Mr Pearson’s 23 May 2025 affidavits[30] contain little more information than stating that the amount claimed is a fee for carbon burning assistance including wages, superannuation, administration, food and fuel. The invoices contain only a total amount for fees, and a total amount for administration. There is no breakdown, no identification of the work conducted, when it was carried out, where it was carried out, the number of persons engaged in the work, whether helicopter services were used etc. Three invoices were issued on the same date, on the same invoice number 10634, but without explanation are impossible to reconcile.
  4. [74]
    I acknowledge the submission of Mr Vaughan that he would, subject to him (or the holder of the ML from time to time) holding and complying with all necessary fire licences and/or permits, conduct annual seasonal burning as required on both MLs. 
  5. [75]
    In those circumstances, he submits that asset protection can be achieved without the need for backburning. 
  6. [76]
    I accept that COTP will incur cost and expense as a result of the renewal of the Prospect Hill ML in obtaining Palmerville ACCUs through the savanna burning project. The compensable cost and expense is for the activities that, but for the renewal of the ML, would not be required in order to obtain ACCUs on Palmerville. I accept that such a claim is compensable under s 281(3)(a)(vi) as a ‘loss or expense that arises’. The challenge is how that loss or expense is quantified.
  7. [77]
    I am in the same position I was in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park concerning evidence. I do not know the arrangements, agreements or even an accurate account of the number of MLs surrounding or proximate to the Vaughan ML and the Prospect Hill ML. While agreement with another party would not determine the correct compensation it might nevertheless be instructive. 
  8. [78]
    Accordingly, I largely take the same approach I applied in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park.
  9. [79]
    However, in respect of the Vaughan ML, ML 20409, the evidence was that only 5 ha of the ML sits on Palmerville, the remainder is on the Resources Reserve. In addition, ML 20409 also has a natural (watercourse) boundary, and a sizeable tailings dam, which according to Mr Pearson “would be a cheaper lease to burn”. As I have stated the evidence was poor. It would however seem logical that backburning would be required for the entire boundary of the Resources Reserve. In that case, the boundary of ML 20409 simply ‘pushes that boundary out’ and does not result in any greater, or significantly greater, area of backburning. No compensation for backburning of ML 20409 is awarded.
  10. [80]
    In relation to the Prospect Hill ML, ML 20532, the compensation I award should be on the same basis as that awarded in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, and for the same reasons. Compensation is payable only in circumstances where the work is carried out in relation to a “job lot”, that is, all the MLs surrounding and including ML 20532. The evidence concerning the number of other MLs in the area of ML 20532, and with whom COTP have entered into agreements, was vague and imprecise. 
  11. [81]
    Doing the best I can in the circumstances, compensation payable in relation to ML 20532 for backburning will be no greater than the compensation to be paid by any of the “surrounding” holders of MLs who have entered into agreements with COTP in relation to the savanna burning project. If the amounts paid by those other miners is not apportioned equally as between them, the amount to be paid by Prospect Hill should be no greater than the lowest amount paid by a surrounding miner. Any invoice issued to Prospect Hill must provide sufficient detail for Mr Vaughan to establish and verify that fact. However, as in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park, the maximum payable by the holder of ML 20532 in any one year will be no greater than $1,450.[31] 
  12. [82]
    It is incumbent on COTP, the WYAC and/or ACF to give adequate advance, necessary and reasonable notice of intended savanna burning in the area of ML 20532. Should Prospect Hill undertake “asset protection” burning on ML 20532 as indicated, COTP must be informed of that fact and given adequate notice. The necessary licence or permit must be obtained. Mr Vaughan or the holder of ML 20532 from time to time must be contactable and responsive to any notice provided by COTP and/or WYAC regarding savanna burning. Importantly, any asset protection burning carried out by the holder of ML 20532 should not be a cause of delay to the savanna burning project, and equally COTP and WYAC need to be informed whether backburning or simply asset protection burning is required.

Water testing

  1. [83]
    The Vaughan ML covers a waterway that joins the Palmer River which flows through Palmerville and feeds water holes, while the Prospect Hill ML is over several creek beds which also feeds water holes on Palmerville. It is not disputed that COTP is concerned that, as ore is processed, contaminants may travel from the MLs to the Palmer River, posing a risk to barramundi and people who eat them, and cattle who drink from the water.[32] 
  2. [84]
    Mr Vaughan, on the other hand, says that he does not use any contaminants in the working of his mining operations and does not accept that any risk exists. Water only is used in the alluvial mining plant. He says that there can be no practical testing that would evidence any water contamination directly from either of the subject MLs.
  3. [85]
    COTP says that to mitigate the perceived risk, they will seek to test the water in the Palmer River downstream of the MLs to check for contaminants. They claim the cost of up to six water tests per annum, payable within 30 days of invoice, though Mr Pearson says that he does not know precisely how much the testing will cost. He estimates “about $165 per test plus the time required for the collection of samples.”[33]
  4. [86]
    The most recent affidavit of Mr Pearson was filed 13 June 2025,[34] three (3) working days before the hearing. Annexed to the affidavit is document DAP-01, an email from Kathryn Hughes dated 12 June 2025. Ms Hughes was not nominated as an expert witness nor a lay witness, she was not called by the respondent to appear at the hearing, she was not available to the applicants for cross examination, or to the Court to be questioned regarding her email.
  5. [87]
    The highest point the evidence reaches is that contaminants, in particular arsenic, exist in the natural environment, and can be released by natural forces. COTP’s concern is that the prospect of them being released in greater quantities is higher when “rock is being broken”. 
  6. [88]
    The last-minute nature of this evidence was referenced by Ms Thomas in the applicants’ opening submissions at the hearing:

“The evidence provided by Ms [Kathryn] Hughes had not been provided by Mr Pearson in previous affidavits. As this evidence was only produced on Friday the 13th of June at 1.12 pm, there was no allowance for the applicant to dispute these claims with their own expert witnesses. I ask that the Court dismiss this evidence. Also taking into consideration that the said evidence suggests hard rock operations could contribute to an increased level of contamination. Mr Vaughan does not intend to operate a hard rock operation on this mining lease – either mining lease.”[35]

  1. [89]
    To this, Counsel for the respondent says that it is admissible because the rules of evidence do not apply. The evidence was late, unsworn and insufficient to make findings untested.
  2. [90]
    This evidence was considered in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park. I repeat the findings and conclusions made in that matter at paragraphs [92]-[106]. The findings and conclusions apply equally in relation to both the Vaughan and Prospect Hill matters.
  3. [91]
    I make no order for compensation for water testing.

Administrative costs

  1. [92]
    The claim for administrative costs at the time of the hearing was for $370.88 together with GST pa, or $3708.80 for the ten-year term. An identical claim was made in Pickering v Chelsea on the Park. 
  2. [93]
    In the Guernier matter, the claim for administrative costs was for $500 pa for processing compensation payments and an annual audit of compliance. The hearing member considered the claim to be ambit. At [27] of the Guernier decision it was said that the processing of annual payments should take minutes and monitoring compliance with the mining lease conditions and erosion on the track can happen on “its monthly visits to the area” – a reference to [33] where it is said “… Chelsea personnel will be in the area monthly” – which I understand to be in reference  to checks on track maintenance. At [28] the hearing member determined that additional administration would take an extra two hours per annum and awarded 4 hours (2 persons, 2 hours) at $92.72 for a total $370.88 pa. The amount claimed in these matters.
  3. [94]
    Despite some confusion between the parties during closing submissions at the hearing, this claim does not seem contested by the applicant in either matter. In particular, there was some discussion as to whether the administrative costs payment will be a one-time fee, or an annual payment. The confusion was settled by the following passage in the hearing transcript:[36]

McNAMARA M: Yes, but nothing else is. Okay. So just coming back to the administrative cost, the calculation from Kelly, which is what the respondent submits is appropriate, $370.88 per annum, I’m going to come back to, is that accepted by the applicant.

MS THOMAS: Yes.

McNAMARA M: Okay. Of course, I’ve got to make up my own mind on this.

MS THOMAS: I understand. Yes.

  1. [95]
    I agree with the comments made by the hearing member in Guernier that, broadly speaking, the additional administration time COTP will incur is minimal and the award reflects that. The amount of $370.88 pa (inclusive of GST) is appropriate compensation for administrative costs.

Conclusion

  1. [96]
    Mr Vaughan must pay COTP compensation as follows:

Head of compensation

Amount ($)

Deprivation of possession of the surface of the land: s 281(3)(a)(i)

$433.50

Additional amount to reflect the compulsory nature of the payment: s 281(4)(e)

$43.35

All loss or expense that arises as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease: s 281(3)(a)(vi):

 

Biosecurity

$0

Backburning

$0

Water testing

$0

Administrative costs

$370.88 per annum

  1. [97]
    Prospect Hill must pay COTP compensation as follows:

Head of compensation

Amount ($)

Deprivation of possession of the surface of the land: s 281(3)(a)(i)

$3,175.82

Additional amount to reflect the compulsory nature of the payment: s 281(4)(e)

$317.58

All loss or expense that arises as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease: s 281(3)(a)(vi):

 

Biosecurity

$0

Backburning

An amount no greater than the lowest amount agreed to and paid by any of the miners on mining leases surrounding or near to ML 20532 who have entered into a compensation agreement with COTP, on invoice, for work completed around and/or within ML 20532 as part of the savanna burning project, but in any case an amount no greater than $1,450 in any year

Water testing

$0

Administrative costs

$370.88 per annum

Orders

  1. In respect of the application for renewal of ML 20409, compensation is determined as follows:
    1. The applicant must pay the respondent Four Hundred and Seventy-Six Dollars and Eighty-Five Cents ($476.85) representing the deprivation of possession of the area of ML 20409 that is over Palmerville Station, which amount is inclusive of the statutory 10% uplift;
    2. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($370.88) per annum for administrative expenses.
    3. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(a) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    4. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 1(b) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development and then annually on the date of the renewal of ML 20409 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
  2. In respect of the application for renewal of ML 20532, compensation is determined as follows:
    1. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Three Dollars and Forty Cents ($3,493.40) representing the deprivation of possession of the total area of ML 20532, which amount is inclusive of the statutory 10% uplift;
    2. The applicant must pay the respondent Three Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Eighty-Eight Cents ($370.88) per annum for administrative expenses; and
    3. The applicant must pay the respondent an amount no greater than the lowest amount agreed to and paid by any of the miners on mining leases surrounding or near to ML 20532 who have entered into a compensation agreement with COTP, on invoice, for work completed around and/or within ML 20532 as part of the savanna burning project, but in any case an amount no greater than One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($1,450) in any year.
    4. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 2(a) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    5. The applicant must pay the amount set out in order 2(b) to the respondent within one (1) month of the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development and then annually on the date of the renewal of ML 20532 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Manufacturing, and Regional and Rural Development.
    6. The applicant must pay the amount determined in accordance with order 2(c) within 30 days of receipt of an itemised invoice.

Footnotes

[1][2025] QLC 20.

[2]Publicly accessible information indicates the Resources Resource to be approximately 16,000 ha in area. The Resources Reserve is managed by the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation.

[3]Pursuant to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cth); Ex 9 & 18, List of matters not in dispute, paras 10-1.

[4]Ex 7, Affidavit of M S Vaughan filed 9 June 2025, paras 8-9; Ex 17, Affidavit of M S Vaughan filed 9 June 2025, paras 7-8.

[5]Ex 5, Applicant’s response to respondent’s response, para 1.

[6]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279.

[7]Ex 1, MRA005-25 Originating Application filed 20 January 2025; Ex 11, MRA006-25 Originating Application filed 20 January 2025.

[8]Ex 3, Applicant’s compensation statement, paras 2, 5.

[9]Ex 5, Applicant’s response to respondent’s response, para 3.

[10]T 1-30, lines 47 to 49; T 1-31, lines 1 to 3.

[11]T 1-28, line 37; T 1-40, lines 10 to 22.

[12]T 1-43, lines 10 to 11.

[13]Ex 5 & 15, Applicant’s response to respondent’s response, para 2; T 1-20, lines 13 to 49; T 1-21, lines 1 to 34.

[14]Ex 3-8; Ex 13-17.

[15]Ex 5 & 15, Applicant’s response to respondent’s response, para 9.

[16][2020] QLC 36.

[17][2021] QLC 13.

[18]Ex 6, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 64; Ex 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 78.

[19]Ibid paras 21-2.

[20]Ex 5 & 15, Applicant’s response to respondent’s response, para 10.

[21]Ex 6 & Ex 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, DAP-06.

[22]Ibid.

[23]Ex 6, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 65; Ex 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 79.

[24]Ex 9, List of matters not in dispute, paras 19-20.

[25]Ex 7, Affidavit of M S Vaughan filed 9 June 2025, para 39; Ex 17, Affidavit of M S Vaughan filed 9 June 2025, para 38.

[26]Pursuant to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cth); Ex 9 & 18, List of matters not in dispute, paras 10-1.

[27]Ex 6, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 84; Ex 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, para 99.

[28]Ex 6, para 89; Ex 16, para 104.

[29]T 1-81, lines 2 to 5.

[30]Ex 6 & 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, DAP-11.

[31]One tenth of $14,500.

[32]Ex 6, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, paras 71-5; Ex 16, Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 23 May 2025, paras 86-90.

[33]Ex 6, paras 76-9; Ex 16, paras 91-4.

[34]Ex 8, Reply Affidavit of D A Pearson filed 13 June 2025.

[35]T 1-7, lines 3 to 10.

[36]T 1-94, lines 40 to 49.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Vaughan v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd; Prospect Hill Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2025] QLC 21

  • Court:

    QLC

  • Judge(s):

    JR McNamara

  • Date:

    05 Sep 2025

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
Guernier & Anor v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2021] QLC 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QLC 13
Cite 2 - [2021] QLC 13
Kelly v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2020] QLC 36
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QLC 36
Cite 2 - [2020] QLC 36
Pickering v Chelsea on the Park Pty Ltd [2025] QLC 20
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QLC 20
Cite 2 - [2025] QLC 20

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.