Hoolihan v Prichard

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hoolihan v Prichard [2009] QLC 0172

PARTIES:In the matter of Mining Lease No 3434 – Determination of compensation payable by Edward John Hoolihan to Wayne Francis Prichard
FILE NO:MRA320-09
PROCEEDING:  Application for determination of compensation
DELIVERED ON:                  20 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar

ORDER/S:1. Compensation determined at $350.
2. The miner pay the total compensation of $350 to the landholders within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.

CATCHWORDS: MINING LEASE – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s.281

APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers

Background

Edward John Hoolihan (the miner) currently holds Mining Lease 3434. The mining lease was originally granted on 12 November 1985 for a period of 21 years. On 16 April 2009 the miner lodged an application for a renewal of the mining lease for a term of 7 years with the Mining Registrar, Georgetown District.

This determination of compensation relates to access to the mining lease and to part of the mining lease itself (8 ha) located on a property owned by Wayne Francis Prichard (the landholder).

Court Practice Direction

On 5 August 2009 the Court sent letters to the miner and the landholder bringing the referral of this matter to the Court by the Mining Registrar to their attention and advising them of their obligations under Court Practice Direction. Timeframes for the submissions of relevant material were provided to each party. Both the landholder and the miner have made submissions to the Court.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for either or both parties in a compensation matter before the Court to fail to make detailed relevant submissions to the Court. The absence of detailed, or any, compensation evidence clearly makes the task of the Court in determining compensation very difficult. In the circumstances, I adopt the analysis of the legislative provisions, compensation principles and methodology applied by Mining Referree Windridge in Re Wallace & Ors & Evans.[1]

Determination

[1] [2006] QLRT 93.

Taking into account all heads of compensation in s.281(3) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) and absent any details of the area of land required for access and taking into account both parties’ submissions, I assess compensation for the lease area in the sum of $5 per hectare per annum for the term of the lease (7 years), which equates to $280. I also award $40 for access. Pursuant to s.281(4)(e) of the Act, I award the additional sum of $30.

Taking all relevant factors into account, I order that the miner pay the total compensation of $350 to the landholders within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar.

I note that the landowner’s submissions on breach of lease conditions by the miner are not relevant to the Court’s determination on compensation. This is a matter to be taken up with the Mining Registrar.

BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land Court of Queensland, the case of Hoolihan v Prichard dealt with the determination of compensation payable by Edward John Hoolihan, the miner, to Wayne Francis Prichard, the landholder, concerning Mining Lease No 3434. The dispute arose due to the application for a renewal of the mining lease, which was originally granted on 12 November 1985 for a period of 21 years, and extended by a term of 7 years starting on 16 April 2009. The compensation was to cover access to the mining lease and part of the mining lease itself, specifically 8 hectares of land owned by Prichard.

The primary legal issue before the court was the calculation of the compensation payable to Prichard under section 281 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989. The court needed to consider the relevant compensation principles and the methodology for determining compensation, which included the assessment of the area of land required for access, the duration of the lease, and any additional factors stipulated by the Act. Given the submissions made by both parties and the absence of detailed evidence, the court had to rely on the analysis of the legislative provisions and compensation principles previously applied by a mining referee.

The Judicial Registrar, BR O’Connor, determined that compensation for the lease area amounted to $5 per hectare per annum for the 7-year term, which totalled $280. Additionally, the Registrar awarded $40 for access. The court also considered an additional sum of $30 under section 281(4)(e) of the Act. Thus, the total compensation payable to Prichard was set at $350. The court ordered that the miner must pay this amount within two months from notification of the renewal of the mining lease by the Mining Registrar. Notably, the court clarified that any allegations of breach of lease conditions by the miner were not relevant to the compensation determination and should be addressed with the Mining Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established