- In Hail Creek Coal Holdings & Ors v Michelmore [2020] QLC 16, the Land Court struck out an objection to the grant of a mining lease on the ground that it was frivolous.
- The Land Court clarified that an objection may be struck out under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA) if it is frivolous or vexatious. It does not need to be both. If an objection is struck out, the Court is not otherwise required to consider the statutory criteria in section 269(4) of the MRA and make a recommendation to the Minister about the application.
Objection to application for mining lease over existing accommodation camp
This case concerned a mining lease application made by Hail Creek Coal Holdings Pty Ltd and other mining companies over land held under a pastoral lease by a landholder. The mining lease would authorise the use of the land for an accommodation camp which had otherwise been operating on the site since 2003.
One of the landholder's objections to the mining lease application was that: "the mining lease should not be granted because, taking into consideration the current and potential future uses of the land, the proposed mining operation is not an appropriate land use."
The Miners sought to strike out this objection as frivolous or vexatious.
The Land Court noted that the Land Court's power to make such an order comes from section 267A(1)(b) of the MRA and not the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).
The objection was frivolous, but not vexatious
The Land Court clarified that an objection is frivolous when it is made without reasonable grounds, and vexatious when it is made purely to annoy or trouble the other side. An objection may be struck out if it is frivolous or vexatious; it does not need to be both.
On the evidence before it, the Land Court could not conclude that the landholder had brought the objection purely to annoy or trouble. The objection was therefore not vexatious, despite its effect being to vex the miners.
However, the Land Court was satisfied that the objection was frivolous.
The landholder's objection narrowed to the issue of the impact of the mining camp on surface water and groundwater. The objection did not identify any specific impact on water caused by the camp. The Land Court considered that, as the camp had already been operating for many years on the land, it would be reasonable to expect more specificity about the nature and source of the landholder's concerns. This lack of detail left the miners having to guess the substance of the assertions against them – a position which has previously led to objections being struck out as frivolous.
The camp's operation had already been considered by the local authority in granting a development approval and by the Department of Environment and Science in extending an existing environmental authority over the land. In light of these previous investigations and the landholder's inability to point to any impacts beyond facts "so vague as to be meaningless", the Court determined that it did not need to receive expert reports before striking out the objection as frivolous.
For more details about this case, see our 14 May 2020 Energy & Resources Alert Queensland Land Court strikes out frivolous objection to Hail Creek mining lease application.
Authors: John Briggs, Partner and Libby McKillop, Senior Associate
