“Antithesis of mining” – Council loses mining rate case

MUSWELLBROOK Shire Council lost a case in the Supreme Court last month against Mangoola Coal, the court ruling a Council is not permitted to charge mining land rates on a mining company’s agricultural land, which has important implications for a range of land owners.

In his ruling, Justice Robert McFarlene, said agricultural land, which is designed to offset the adverse effects of mining in effect was the “antithesis of mining.”

Muswellbrook Council argued some land owned by Glencore was not being used for agriculture, however Justice McFarlene accepted evidence that more than 1,000 head of cattle had been grazed on the land, but the company had destocked during the drought.

Cattle grazing on Mangoola’s offset property.

Judge McFarlene also said electricity and water infrastructure leading to the mine site and occupying only one percent of the land, did not justify the primary use of the land being mining.

He likened it to “characterising and rating a suburban residential lot on which a dwelling stands as ‘business’, because there is a shop next door that enjoys a drainage or water supply easement over it”.

Glencore welcomed the decision and will now go back to the Land and Environment Court to determine the proper land rates.

Muswellbrook Shire was directed to pay Mangoola’s legal costs for the appeal in the Supreme Court and may be required to compensate the mining company for two years worth of incorrectly charged land rates.

In 2013, the Mid-Western Shire Council lost two cases in the Land and Environment Court against Peabody and Glencore for charging mining rates on agricultural land, however Muswellbrook Shire Council still proceeded to charge mining rates in their Shire, despite the legal precedent.

The Council has not responded to questions regarding how much ratepayer money has been spent pursuing the matter through the Land and Environment Court and Supreme Court, or confirm if it intends to continue to challenge the ruling in the High Court.

Claire Smith, a partner at Clayton Utz, said the ruling had important implications for a range of land owners.

“The decision is relevant for anyone that has different uses on different parcels of land, for example manufacturing may have buffer areas of land they use for agriculture and the primary use of that land, the purpose of that land is the relevant one, not because it is owned by a manufacturer,” said Ms Smith.

“The initial judgement in this matter was concerning, the Judge said any land that even had tangential, or connected in anyway to mining, could be rated as mining land, with much higher land rates than for example agricultural land,” she said. 

“But the Court of Appeal I think rightly said it comes back to dominant purpose, the dominant purpose of a biodiversity, is from protecting biodiversity and is the opposite of mining,” Claire Smith said.

The decision from the Supreme Court: Mangoola V Muswellbrook Shire.