LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hudson & Ors v Pedracini [2014] QLC 10
PARTIES:
Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and
Michael James Stout
(applicants)
v
Reginald Joseph Pedracini and Beverley Isabell Jane
Pedracini
(respondents)
FILE NO:
MRA338-11
DIVISION:
Land Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:
Application for Determination of Compensation
ML 30031 - Determination of Compensation payable by
Douglas Thomas Hudson, Marie-Anne Heather Stout and
Michael James Stout to Reginald Joseph Pedracini and
Beverley Isabell Jane Pedracini.
DELIVERED ON:
19 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARD AT:
Cairns
MEMBER:
WL Cochrane
ORDER:
1.
2.
CATCHWORDS:
Compensation in respect of ML 30031 is
determined at $110 per annum.
The miner is to pay the said compensation to the
landowner in advance with the first payment to be
made within two months from notification of
renewal of the mining lease by the mining registrar
and payable thereafter on the anniversary of the
granting of the renewal of the mining lease.
Mining Lease – Determination of Compensation –
Compulsory Nature of Action – Compensation
Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 279A, 281, 363
Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell 10 March 1998 unreported
Shaw v Heritage Holdings Pty Ltd (1992-93) 14 QLCR
139
SG & PM Smith v RA Cameron [1986] 11 QLCR 64
Snowmist Pty Ltd v Cantoni [2011] QLC 0052
Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93
Wellington v Pedracini [2011] QLC 0021
Re: Wilkins & Mudge [2009] QLC 0075.
APPEARANCES:
The matter is determined on the papers.
Background
[1]
The Court has before it a referral for determination of compensation in respect of renewal
of ML 30031.
[2]
Compensation in respect of a renewal of a mining lease must be settled before that
renewal can be granted. So much is provided by s 279 of the Mineral Resources Act
1989.
[3]
The mining lease is located on a property described as lease number PH 728 County of
Gilbert Parish of Mistletoe, which is generally referred to as Mistletoe Station.
[4]
An aerial photograph of ML 30031 provided to the Court by Mr Hudson who acts for all
three of the proposed miners shows a treatment plant, workshop, kitchen, facilities block,
storage area, two caravans, a Telstra installation and a truck shed.
[5]
The lease is generally a regular rectangular area which is said to be one hectare in size.
[6]
The original mining lease dates from 1 February 1982 and has been renewed regularly in
1998 and 2005. In each case the term was 6 or 6.6 years. In the current application the
Applicants seek a term of 6 years.
[7]
The application for renewal of the mining lease appears to have been lodged with the
Mining Registrar at Georgetown in about November 2010.
[8]
The application makes no reference to the area of any access road but it is clear from the
Queensland Government map attached to the Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation mining lease report that access is proposed over an area
about 2 km long and 10 m wide. In their material filed with the Court on 18 October
2011 the Applicants say, with respect to the matter of access that “we consider the
diminution of use of the land to be minimal as the access has been established in excess
of 25 years and is used by the miners, prospectors and the landholders."
[9]
I further acknowledge that maintenance work is apparently carried out on the access road
whenever required and submit that the access has recently been upgraded to facilitate
drilling exploration by other operators adjacent to the subject mining lease ML 30031. In
2
my view it is beside the point that other persons including the landowners make use of
the mining access.
[10]
The Applicant proposed to make use of the access and that use will necessarily contribute
to any impacts on that access way, by virtue of vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is a
compensable use of the landowners’ land.
[11]
In an attempt to resolve the compensation issue with the property lessees a compensation
agreement was sent by the Applicants to the landowners in August 2011 evincing a
willingness to pay $100 per annum as compensation for the mining lease subject to the
general conditions of course which flow from the Mineral Resources Act. 1
[12]
That offer was rejected.
[13]
Mr and Mrs Pedracini through their then solicitor responded with a compensation
agreement which contemplated an annual compensation sum of $3,000 per annum paid
annually on 1 June to provide for a total compensation sum of $18,000. In addition to
those sums the Pedracinis contended for a condition requiring as follows:
"The Miner further agrees to erect at the Miner's sole expense and maintain of a four (4)
barbwire fence around the dam on the Mining Lease during the term of the Renewal of
the Mining Lease for the period 1 June 2011 to 31 May 2017."
[14]
The justification for the requirement for a fence around a dam has never been explained
to the Court. Normally such a condition would be made a condition of the mining lease
rather than a condition of compensation.
[15]
In the present instance the Mining Registrar's referral has occurred because no agreement
has been reached between the parties in respect of the compensation which is payable.
[16]
I have commented on a number of occasions, as have other Members of the Court, that s
281(3) of the MRA identifies the matters which must be considered in determining the
compensation. Section 281(3) provides that an owner of land is entitled to compensation
for:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
deprivation of possession of the surface of land of the owner;
diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements
thereon;
diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the
owner or any improvements thereon;
severance of any part of the land from other parts thereof or from other
land of the owner;
any surface rights of access;
all loss or expense that arises;
as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease; and
(b) in the case of compensation referred to in section 280—
1
See s 276 Mineral Resources Act 1989.
3
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
diminution of the value of the land of the owner or any improvements
thereon;
diminution of the use made or which may be made of the land of the
owner or any improvements thereon;
all loss or expense that arises;
as a consequence of the grant or renewal of the mining lease.
[17]
That section however, does not in a statutory sense, define any particular method of
assessment. 2
[18]
This Court has, on previous occasions, taken comfort from the observations of an earlier
President of the Land Court (Mr White) in Smith v Cameron 3 .
[19]
In the Smith case Mr White observed: 4
"The section in my opinion merely identifies matters which shall be taken into
consideration in making the assessment. It does not prescribe a method of valuation. No
doubt each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances but it seems to me that
either method is open to the valuer."
[20]
Similar observations to those of the President have also been made in Shaw v Heritage
Holdings Pty Ltd 5 and in Mitchell v Oakhill and Mitchell6 .
[21]
In Smith v Cameron the President was considering competing contentions supporting
either a "before and after" method of valuation or a "piecemeal assessment" approach to
the valuation exercise.
[22]
In Wilkins v Mudge, which was referred to above, the Judicial Registrar of this Court Mr
O'Connor observed: 7
"While the Miners claim nil compensation should be awarded at this stage, some
allowance must be made for the blot on the landowner’s titles resulting from the
existence of the mining lease."
[23]
It should be observed that in that case the Judicial Registrar was acting in somewhat of a
vacuum, neither party having filed any material to assist him in his task of assessing
compensation.
[24]
In the present case the parties have filed material but, as observed below, that material is
of little assistance to the Court.
[25]
The mining lease was due to expire on 31 May 2011 and the application for renewal was
lodged with the Mining Registrar at Georgetown on 3 November 2010.
2
3
4
5
6
7
See Snowmist Pty Ltd v Cantoni [2011] QLC 0052, Wallace & Ors & Evans [2006] QLRT 93 and Re: Wilkins
& Mudge [2009] QLC 0075.
SG & PM Smith v RA Cameron [1986] 11 QLCR 64.
[1986] 11 QLCR 64 at page 74.
(1992-93) 14 QLCR 139.
10 March 1998 unreported.
[2009] QLC 0075 at 4.
4
[26]
The additional information which accompanied the application identified the mining
lease area as one on which no mining operations were carried out but which was used for
workshop and plant and storage and as an operational base for both existing and
proposed leases. It was proposed that all structures of the miners' would be located on
this site.
[27]
The fact that no mining will be carried out on the subject lease site is, in my view,
irrelevant to determination of the appropriate amount of compensation.
[28]
In September 2011 orders were made for the filing of material to be relied upon by the
parties.
[29]
On 18 October 2011 Mr Hudson on behalf of the Applicants, filed a document with the
Court which set out their contention that compensation of $100 per annum for the lease
and access should be paid, such payment to be made within 30 days after each
anniversary of the renewal date.
[30]
By way of justification of the miners' proposal Mr Hudson set out the following:
"Justification of the Proposal
[31]
1.
The applicants' compensation proposal (A2) is comparable to other agreements in the
district and assessed using land valuations ($34.43/ha) QVAS refer: A3 and
acceptable DPI stocking rates for 'dry land savannah'.
2.
We consider the diminution of use of the land to be minimal as the access has been
established in excess of 25 years and is used by the miners, prospectors and the
landholders.
3.
The operations on the lease are dependent on water supply availability. Generally
less than 6 months per year is operational.
4.
The access is not fenced and does not affect or restrict the movement of cattle.
5.
No operations or access is made during the wet season. (Thus minimising
maintenance).
6.
The miners carry out maintenance to the access whenever required from which all
users benefit.
7.
The access has been recently upgraded to facilitate drilling exploration by other
operators, adjacent to ML 30031."
With reference to point 1 the reader is directed to the document entitled A3 which is a
QVAS property details report in respect of the Mistletoe Station. That QVAS report
shows the property to have an area of 40,922 ha with a valuation of $1,450,000.
[32]
From using those figures Mr Hudson extracted a value of $34.43 per ha. I think the
correct figure is $35.43 but nothing much turns upon that.
[33]
Mr and Mrs Pedracini had also had prepared for the Court by their then solicitor, a
document entitled "Response" to the Hudson material.
[34]
In it they set out in some detail the background to the mining lease.
5
[35]
The landowners, the Pedracinis, identify the lease that is the subject of these proceedings
as dating back to at least 1990.
[36]
The material submitted includes what must be regarded as an objection to the grant of the
renewal and requests this Court not to renew ML 30031.
[37]
In my view, as this matter was referred to the Court only for the purpose of determining
the question of compensation, there is no basis upon which I am required to consider the
issue of the mining lease per se.
[38]
In any event, on my reading of the statutory provisions no entitlement vests in a
landowner to object to the renewal of a lease which has already been granted.
[39]
Putting that aside, the landowners seek compensation for the following:
"1. Deprivation of possession of the surface area contained in the Mining Lease and the
non-gazetted access road:
(a) deprivation of possession of surface area contained in ML30031 @ $305.77 per
hectare based on market value of land = $305.77 (excluding GST).
(b) (2.5km x 10m non-gazetted access road = 2.5ha) @ $305.77 per hectare
equating to $764.43 (excluding GST).
[40]
2.
Compensation in the amount of $18,000.00 (excluding GST) over a 6 year renewal
period being payable in 6 equal instalments of $3,000.00 (excluding GST) being
payable annually on the anniversary of the renewal of ML30031 being the
Landholders' costs consequential to the Miner's activities on ML30031 specifically in
relation to the contamination and silting of the tailing dam constructed on ML30031
and the Landholder's costs in relation to retrieval of cattle fouling in the dam
constructed by the Miner on ML 30031.
3.
The construction of a 4 wire barb fence at the Miner's sole cost to the Landholders'
specifications around the boundary of ML30031 during the proposed term of renewal
of ML30031.
4.
Payment of the Landholders' legal costs involved in the preparation, negotiation,
construction, execution and stamping of any compensation agreement in the amount
of $1,000.00 (excluding GST)."
They go on to assert that the compensation offered by the miner does not adequately
compensate the landholders for loss arising from the following matters:











"Deprivation of possession of the surface area of the Land;
Diminution of the value of the Land of the Landholder or any improvements
thereon;
Diminution of the use made or which may be made of the Land of the
Landholder or any improvements thereon;
Severance of any part of the Land from other parts of the Landholders' land or
from other Land of the Landholder;
Any surface rights of access;
Loss of cattle killed or injured as a result of the Miner's activities on the Land
and proposed access road;
Disturbance;
Vehicular traffic on non-gazetted access road;
Environmental damage and nuisance;
Dust and Erosion;
Introduction of noxious weeds."
6
[41]
It is the landowners' submission that true and appropriate compensation should occur in
the form of:
"1. Deprivation of possession of 1 hectare at $305.77 (excluding GST).
[42]
2.
Deprivation of possession of non-gazetted access road at $764.43 (excluding GST).
3.
Compensation for the Landholders' loss and expenses arising from the contamination
and silting of the tailing dam on ML30031 at $18,000.00 (excluding GST).
4.
Construction of a 4 barb wire stock proof fence around the boundary of ML30031 at
the Miner's sole cost and expense to the Landholders' specifications.
5.
The Landholders' legal costs involved in the preparation, negotiation, construction,
execution and stamping of a Compensation Agreement capped at $1,000.00
(excluding GST)."
The submission of the landowners goes on to reject the miners' offer of $100 per annum
and also the contention that the market value of the land was $35.43.
[43]
[44]
The landowners make a number of assertions in their submissions. Those assertions are:
(a)
"… the market value of the Landholders' land comprising ML30031 and
associated non-gazetted access roads is $1,070.20 (excluding GST)."
(b)
"… that the surface area of ML30031 is quality grazing country in comparison
to other parts of the Etheridge Shire Council and maintains a high (sic)
carrying capacity than other areas in the Etheridge Shire."
(c)
"… that the Miner has constructed infrastructure on the Landholders' land
outside the boundary of ML30031 without the Landholders' consent."
(d)
"… that an area much larger than the mining lease area will be affected by the
Miner's renewal and any mining operations."
(e)
"… that the dam constructed by the Miner and associated infrastructure is not
confined to the area of ML30031 (1 Ha)."
(f)
"… that the dam constructed by the Miner has become toxic and contaminated
and is being used by the Miner as a tailings dam and as it remains unfenced
by the Miner and affects cattle who water at the dam."
(g)
"… that the monetary compensation offered by the Miner in the amount of $100
per annum is inadequate in respect of the deprivation of possession of the
surface of the land, diminution of the value of the Land of the Landholders'
Land (sic) or any improvements thereon, diminution of the use made or
which may be made of the Land of the Landholder and any improvements
thereon, severance of any part of the Land from other parts of the
Landholder (sic), any surface rights of access, loss of cattle killed or injured
as a result of the Miner's activity on the Land and proposed access road,
disturbance, environmental nuisance principally in the form of dust, erosion
and the introduction of noxious weeds."
Unfortunately the landholders do not provide any details in support of their assertions nor
any evidence of the conduct complained of.
[45]
There is no proper evidence of the value of the land and nor is there any evidence that the
particular location of the mining lease is on quality grazing land either in general or on
land of a better quality than that generally found throughout the Etheridge Shire.
7
[46]
There is nothing which the Court could rely upon which evidences carrying capacity of
the subject property or of other comparable properties.
[47]
To the extent that there is an allegation that infrastructure has been constructed on land
outside the boundary of ML30031 without the landholders' consent, that is a matter
which could be the subject of complaint but it is not a matter which sounds in
compensation.
[48]
To the extent that it is contended that the impact of the mining lease will go beyond the
boundaries of the mining lease area there is no evidence on that matter.
[49]
There is issue taken with a dam which allegedly goes beyond the area of the mining lease
and there are allegations that the dam has become toxic and contaminated.
[50]
There is no suggestion that the dam fencing has been erected by the landowners and
accordingly there is no element of compensation which might reflect a restitution amount
for monies expended by the Pedracinis.
[51]
Those are matters which relate to the terms of the lease itself and, could be substantiated
by the making of a complaint made to the relevant authorities, either to the Department
of Mines or the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. They are not
matters in respect of which this Court has any power in the context of a determination of
compensation.
[52]
Alternatively, because it is beyond my jurisdiction in a case such as this to make orders
or to determine compensation in such a way as to repair damage done in the past, the
landowners are entitled to contemplate bringing their own action pursuant to the
provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 363 which deals with the substantive
jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine actions, suits and proceedings arising in
relation to prospecting, exploration or mining or to any permit claim licence or lease
granted or issued under this Act or any other Act relating to mining.
[53]
Section 363(2)(h) gives this Court jurisdiction to hear and determine actions with respect
to any assessment of damage, injury or loss arising from activities purported to have been
carried on under the authority of this Act or any other Act relating to mining.
[54]
Similarly a requirement to construct or to maintain fences is not a matter of
compensation but rather a matter which can be explored in the conditions which attach to
the mining lease.
[55]
There is no evidence before this Court of any cost or loss incurred by the Pedracinis as a
consequence of the dam, (wherever it is located), remaining unfenced.
[56]
Nor is there any evidence with respect to the loss of livestock from any factor relevant to
the grant or utilisation of the mining lease.
8
[57]
The fact that a miner may not currently be making use of a mining lease area does not
excuse it from a requirement to pay compensation for the existence of the lease which, on
a number of occasions, this Court has observed 8 is akin to a resumption because the
landowner is excluded, generally, from the mining lease area. The mining lease area is
said in the Mining Lease Report to have an area of 1 ha. That matter was not sought to
be contradicted by the landowners, indeed, their submission includes a calculation for
deprivation of possession of the surface area of 1 ha.
[58]
In the Mitchell decision the President had to consider compensation for a property where
the mining lease took up an area of 49 ha together with a 2.2 ha access road area.
[59]
In that case the landholder had sought to have the compensation calculated by the
addition on a piecemeal basis of a number of values which were said to reflect various
consequences of the presence of the mining lease on the property.
[60]
The landowners raised issues and compensation amounts with respect to:
(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)
all loss or expense that arose.
(vi)
an additional amount determined to reflect the compulsory nature of the action
taken.
[61]
In his decision the President said: 9
"In my opinion, that piecemeal assessment of compensation by separately addressing
each of the matters for which Section 281(3) provides that an owner of land is entitled, is
not validly based. The assessment of the individual matters is inconsistent and, in part,
represents a doubling-up of some claims. For example, paragraphs (i) and (ii) are
calculated on the basis of productivity on one hand and percentage loss on the other. Such
a piecemeal assessment demonstrates to me the difficulty of attempting to address each of
the matters separately, rather than by an accepted method of valuation, preferably the
'before' and 'after' method. If circumstances force a valuer to adopt a summation
approach, then care must be taken to ensure that there is no over-lapping or doubling-up
in the assessment of compensation."
[62]
Many of the matters asserted by the landholders could have been contained in sworn
affidavits which would carry some probative weight and may have required the miners to
respond to the assertions. That did not happen.
8
9
See Smith v Cameron [1986] 11 QLCR 64 and Mitchell v Oakhill & Anor (unreported) Land Court Brisbane, 10
March 1998.
10 March 1988 unreported, at page 8.
9
[63]
It is not open to the Pedracinis to submit that they were not given any opportunity to
make submissions, nor could it be said that they lacked any opportunity to put evidence
in the form of sworn affidavits before the Court.
[64]
They are aware from previous matters that this Court can only act upon evidence and that
there is an obligation on a party contending for a particular level of compensation to
support that contention with proper evidence.
[65]
It is noteworthy also, that with respect to activities which have occurred in the past and
which may have relevance to the determination of compensation in respect of this
application for renewal of the mining lease, that the Pedracinis are in the best position to
identify any of those matters and to support them with evidence.
[66]
As I indicate above, that has not happened.
[67]
The Pedracinis were appellants in another matter before this Court in 2011 arising out of
a decision of the Judicial Registrar made in 2009. In those circumstances, the Pedracinis
did not bother to provide any information to the Court to assist it in the determination of
compensation so that the Judicial Registrar was compelled to apply the compensation
principles and methodology applied by Mining Referee Windridge in Re: Wallace &
Others v Evans [2006] QLRT 93.
[68]
The issues raised in that appeal 10 reflect the submissions made on their behalf in the
present case.
[69]
In each case the Pedracinis have retained the same legal representation.
[70]
The material submitted by the Pedracinis contains a number of assertions and contentions
without any supporting evidence or other material such as photographs or reports or the
like.
[71]
In an earlier paragraph I drew attention to the decision of this Court in Smith v Cameron
and the observation that the granting of a mining lease might be seen as akin to a
resumption given that the landowner is dispossessed of the use of the land given over to
mining for the duration of the lease.
[72]
In the present case the submissions of the landowners (unsupported by any evidence)
suggest that the value of the land is $307.77 per ha. There has, as pointed out above, been
no attempt to displace the assertion by the miners that the area of the lease is 1 ha. The
renewal application seems not to identify with any particularity the area of any road used
for access on the subject property although a copy of a map showing ML 30031 and ML
3551 shows a straight line access into the mine. The submissions of the landowners are
10
Wellington v Pedracini [2011] QLC 0021.
10
that they seek compensation in respect of access road with a length of 2.5 km and a width
of 10 m.
[73]
Scaling of the map which was produced by the Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Infrastructure suggests that the access road is something less than 2
km. I am inclined to allow the Respondents’ contention that the access road may be 2.5
km in length with a width of 10 m producing a total area of 2.5 ha (i.e. 2,500 m x 10 =
25,000 m²).
[74]
With respect to the road, the landowners of course is not excluded from use of that area
and it may be that others, including the landowners, make use of that access road.
Something, however, must be allowed for the use of that access road by the miners.
[75]
Having regard to the notion of treating the lease area as a defacto resumption and
allowing something for the use of the access way, acceding to the miners' suggestion that
they pay $100 per annum as compensation, would produce a total sum of $600 over the
six year life which is sought for the renewal of the lease.
[76]
That figure equals just less than the value of 2 ha of land adopting the figure contended
for by the landowners of $305.77 per ha. ($305.77 x 2 = $611.54).
[77]
Looked at another way $600 payable over six years equates to $305.77 for the 1 ha of
land taken for the mining lease and $294.23 as compensation for the utilisation of the
access road.
[78]
In the absence of any other evidence I am prepared to find that that figure is a reasonable
figure.
[79]
The landowners are of course not entitled in each year to recover a sum which represents
the per hectare value of the resumed land. That value must be spread across the life of the
lease.
[80]
The landowners' costs are consequential upon what the landowner says is contamination
and silting of the tailing dam, and the costs in relation to retrieval of cattle falling in the
dam. These are matters which, as outlined above, should be the subject of a claim
pursuant to s 363.
[81]
The construction of the barb wire fence is a matter which should have been dealt with at
the stage of the granting of the mining lease and is not, in my view, a matter which falls
within the ambit of a determination of compensation. In the absence of any evidence that
the mining lease and the activities carried thereon would result in depreciation of damage
to existing wire fences, I am not inclined to allow anything for the cost of the
preparation, negotiation, construction, execution of stamping of a compensation
11
agreement (utilising the language adopted by the landowner's in their submission) as that
requirement is usually complied with by the miner.
[82]
This Court has recently been advised by the Office of State Revenue that a compensation
agreement in respect of a mining lease does not need to be assessed for stamp duty nor to
be stamped. Sections 85(4) and 279(4) of the MRA refer to the circumstance that “if an
agreement referred to in subsection (3) is required by any law of Queensland to be
stamped, it shall not be filed until it is stamped according to law”.
[83]
Under the Duties Act 2001 only a dutiable transaction for dutiable property requires
stamping. Paying compensation pursuant to a compensation agreement is not a dutiable
transaction, and dutiable property is not money paid by way of compensation. This
removes the obligation on either party to the compensation agreement to have the
document stamped or assessed for stamp duty.
[84]
Section 281(3)(ii) of the MRA refers to compensation for diminution of the value of the
land of the owner or any improvements thereon.
[85]
There was no submission made by the landowners in support of a contention that there is
any diminution in the value of its land or any improvements thereon.
[86]
Section 281(4)(e) requires that in determining compensation an additional amount shall
be determined to reflect the compulsory nature of action taken under this part which
amount, together with any amount determined pursuant to paragraph (c) shall be not less
than 10% of the aggregate amount determined under subsection (3).
[87]
Having determined that a sum of $600 payable over a period of six years is a reasonable
figure for compensation, pursuant to s 281(4)(e) I add to that figure a sum of $60 so the
total compensation is determined in the sum of $660 payable over six years.
[88]
I am of the view that the compensation should be paid in advance on a simple annual
basis on the anniversary of the granting of the renewal of the mining lease.
[89]
Accordingly I order that:(1) Compensation in respect of ML 30031 is determined at $110 per annum;
(2) The miners are to pay the said compensation to the landowners in advance with the
first payment to be made within two months from notification of renewal of the
mining lease by the Mining Registrar and payable thereafter on the anniversary of
the granting of the renewal of the mining lease.
WL COCHRANE
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
12