Several cases over the past year have considered land rights and how they interact with other priorities including the environment, indigenous land rights and royalties.
In 2022, in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 the Land Court accepted the existence of anthropogenic climate change which meant project proponents believed it may be difficult to obtain approval for fossil fuel extraction in the future. This assumption has been negated in the 2024 Land Court decision BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC 7. In this case, the Court recommended approval for the extension of BHP Coal’s Moranbah mine, reinforcing that while climate change is a consideration, it is not the sole factor in decision-making.
The Environment Council of Central Queensland (ECCQ) opposed the project, raising concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, climate change impacts, endangered species, water resources, rehabilitation, and cumulative effects. However, the Court found BHP Coal’s environmental management measures sufficient and dismissed concerns about regulatory loopholes and project viability.
The Court acknowledged that the proposal engaged human rights, including the right to life and protection of children, due to its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, it ruled that these impacts were limited and outweighed by economic and social benefits, particularly the mine’s production of high-quality metallurgical coal essential for infrastructure development. This case highlights that climate change remains relevant in mining approvals, but economic and social benefits can justify extensions of existing operations if environmental impacts are managed.
The Land Court’s jurisdiction over indigenous and cultural heritage claims was considered in Noble v Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council [2024] QLC 19. The applicant sought ownership of a parcel of land within the Yarrabah Deed of Guarantee in Trust (DOGIT), claiming her family’s long-term caretaking and cultural connection. However, the Land Court dismissed the application for adverse possession and injunctive relief, citing jurisdictional limitations. The Court ruled that DOGIT land, granted “in fee simple in trust” under the Land Act 1994 (Qld), is not subject to adverse possession under the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), which applies only to freehold land.
In addition, the applicant requested an injunction to halt alleged desecration of cultural heritage sites by the Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council (YASC). The Court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief, as the harm had already occurred and was not ongoing. It also could not award compensation for emotional distress, as such matters fall outside its powers.
This case underscores the Land Court’s limited jurisdiction in land disputes involving Aboriginal DOGIT land and cultural heritage claims. While it can address ongoing violations, issues concerning historical damage and compensation require action in other legal forums, such as the Magistrates Court. The ruling clarifies legal boundaries in disputes over Indigenous land rights and cultural heritage protection.
In Hail Creek Coal Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v O’Loughlin & Ors (No 2) [2024] QLC 6, the Land Court ruled on cost applications related to a compensation dispute under the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (MERCP Act). The case affirms that the Land Court Act does not presume each party bears its own costs and the Land Court has broad powers to consider costs following the event where appropriate.
The dispute arose when landholders and Hail Creek Joint Venture (HCJV) failed to negotiate a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA). HCJV sought the Court’s determination, which awarded the landholders compensation but largely accepted HCJV’s proposed CCA terms. HCJV then sought costs on a standard basis up to 11 October 2023, when it made a Calderbank offer (based on Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93) and indemnity costs. The landholders argued they should receive costs instead, as they had secured a more favourable outcome.
The Court ruled in HCJV’s favour, awarding standard costs up to 17 October 2023 and indemnity costs from 18 October 2023 onwards. It found the Calderbank offer was reasonable and the landholders’ rejection was imprudent. This case underscores the risks of rejecting reasonable settlement offers and advancing unsustainable compensation claims in the Land Court.
In the most recent case, the dispute relating to the long-standing royalty agreement between Oil Basins Limited and Esso Resources Pty Ltd continues. On 13 February 2025, the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled in Oil Basins Limited v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd ([2025] VSC 34) that depreciation and decommissioning claims related to a royalty agreement were arbitrable. The case centres on a 2.5% overriding royalty agreement for hydrocarbons in Bass Strait.
Esso argued these claims fell outside arbitration due to a 1994 Settlement Agreement. However, the Court upheld the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, allowing the tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction. Given the complexity of legal and factual issues, the Court found arbitration appropriate.
This decision highlights the importance of clear contractual terms in resource agreements and reinforces the important position arbitration has in Australia’s court system. It serves as a reminder for industry players to carefully draft dispute resolution clauses in contracts, particularly in the oil and gas sector.