..Full Courier Mail article here.... THE Land Court is not...

..Full Courier Mail article here....

THE Land Court is not expected to make a decision on the Acland mine expansion until Christmas, nine months after the first evidence was heard.
The delays in what was expected to be a 10-week case puts a question mark over the ability of New Hope to maintain jobs at the Darling Downs mine because its existing coal resource will be depleted in 2017-18 and a decision is needed by the end of the year to allow for the two-year construction timetable.
The company last week lodged an affidavit of urgency to inform the court of the pressure, and sittings have been held well into the night to hear evidence.
Land Court member Paul Smith told the court on Friday how galling it was for the court to be criticised over the delays when he had been hearing matters while so ill he had resorted to keeping a sick bucket under the bench.
He has already compiled 571 pages of judicial notes on top of tens of thousands of pages of transcript and about 1000 exhibits.
Last week State Development and Natural Resources Minister Anthony Lynham said the court delays over mining projects were becoming untenable, but his criticism was directed at the process rather than the court.
It is now anticipated that hearings will end in September after starting in early March, well past the initial 10-week time frame.
Last month Mr Smith said the appeal process over mining developments was expensive, uncertain, longwinded and “an enigma wrapped in obscurity led by uncertainty” because the court can only make a recommendation to the Government which may or may not accept the findings.
Reform of the court is now expected next year and it is understood the Government will soon make a decision on a new president.
The first objections to the $900 million Acland expansion were referred to the Land Court in mid-October 2015. The first directions hearing was held in Dalby on November 4, 2015, with follow-up directions in Brisbane five days later.
New Hope will not comment on the case while it is under way but the Environmental Defenders Office, which is representing landholders, said the case had shown flaws in crucial issues like job numbers.