LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Woels v Hicks  [2015] QLC 34	
		
PARTIES:	Maximillian Jason Woels
(applicant)	
	v	
	Cameron Jeffrey Hicks
(respondent)	
		
FILE NO:	MRA 531-14	
		
DIVISION:	General Division	
		
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease	
		
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2015	
		
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	
		
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 26 February 2015	
		
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers	
		
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	GJ Smith	
		
ORDERS:	1.	1.  Compensation is determined in the total sum of One     Thousand and Seven Hundred Dollars ($1,700.00).

2.	2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 2049 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.  	
		
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - limited material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A
Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Woels v Hicks [2010] QLC 037	
		
APPEARANCES:	 Not applicable
	
[1]	This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 281(1) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease. 
Background
[2]	On 30 May 2014, Maximillian Jason Woels (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 2049 over land located at Keilambete Station, west of Rubyvale in the Emerald District. The land is within the Central Highlands Regional Council local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 5 years.  The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of corundum, gemstone, sapphire and zircon. 
[3]	Access to the mining lease area is over land owned by Cameron Jeffrey Hicks (the respondent). The land is more particularly described as Lot 19 on CLM 694 GHFL 3735A.  The mining lease area contains an area of 14.5427 hectares.  
Relevant Legislation
[4]	Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of such an agreement, a determination of compensation has been made by the Land Court.  In this matter, no agreement has been lodged with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and the matter has been referred to the Land Court for determination. 
[5]	Section 281 of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered by the Court when determining compensation.  In particular, s 281(3)(a) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation for: 
(i)	deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner; 
(ii)	diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon; 
(iii)	diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the owner or any improvements thereon; 
(iv)	severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other land of the owner; 
(v)	any surface rights of access; 
(vi)	all loss or expense that arises; as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease. 
[6]	Section 281(4) enables various additional factors to be included in the compensation determination.  In the present case, only paragraph (e) is relevant. It provides as follows: 

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

The Conduct of the Proceedings and Evidence
[7]	On 18 December 2014, the Land Court registry wrote to the parties setting out a timetable for the delivery of materials and submissions in accordance with Land Court Practice Direction No.5 of 2013.  On 21 January 2015 the miner provided his material and submission as required. No material was received from the respondent.
[8]	A significant portion of the material provided by the miner concerned his views regarding the conduct and land use practices carried out by the respondent on Keilambete Station.  More relevantly the miner’s material also stated “I am a small scaled mining operation on a tiny corner of Mr Hick’s property and do actually not take anything from or disturb any of Mr Hick’s livestock…..” and “I abide by all mining, safety and environmental regulations and requirements”.
[9]	The material provided by the miner also included a proposed “compensation statement” on his behalf and a proposed draft “indenture” prepared by the respondent (but filed by the miner).  The respondent’s draft indenture covers issues such as the miner’s liability, fencing, rehabilitation of the lease area, rubbish, fires, access to the lease area and included a compensation proposal that corresponds materially with the most recent decision of the Land Court concerning the determination of compensation between the parties regarding ML2049.  In that decision Judicial Registrar Mr BR O’Connor determined compensation in a total amount of $1,700.00 payable within 3 months in respect of a 5 year term.  
[10]	A “compensation letter” dated 19 May 2014 signed by the miner and included with the materials provided by him to the Court in accordance with Practice Direction No.5 of 2013 also suggests a resolution in terms which correspond with the aforementioned determination of Judicial Registrar Mr BR O’Connor.
[11]	In the absence of any critical evidence or substantive material from the parties, the determination of compensation can be quite a challenge.  In Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman, Member Jones [as he then was] noted as follows:
“I realise that my determination of compensation in this case is the result of little more than calculated guesswork or speculation. However, in circumstances where the parties have elected to provide little or no material to the Court concerning their position about compensation there is not much more that the Court can do.”
[12]	In circumstances where there is no valuation or other expert evidence to be considered and no material submitted by the respondent I consider it appropriate to have regard to the previous determination of this Court for guidance when undertaking the present determination, more so given that each party has adopted that assessment as the main element of their suggested resolution of this matter. 
Determination
[13]	Having considered the limited material provided, in light of the previous Land Court determination cited above and and taking into account all heads of compensation set out in s 281(3) of the MRA, I assess the total compensation for Mining Lease 2049 at $1,700.00 for the entire 5 year renewal period.  This determination is inclusive of the additional amount pursuant to s 281(4) (e) of the MRA.
Orders
1.	Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Thousand and Seven Hundred ($1,700.00).
2.	The miner is to pay compensation to the respondent in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 2049 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

G.J. SMITH
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR