Alan Jeffrey Arnold & Ors v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000

[2015] HCASL 115

ALAN JEFFREY ARNOLD & ORS

v

MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2000 & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 115
S305/2014

1. The first respondent ("the Minister") made a water sharing plan and regulations (together, "the plan") pursuant to the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), which reduced by 68 per cent the total long-term groundwater extraction entitlements from a particular water source. The applicants, farmers affected by the reductions, commenced proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the plan.

2. On 31 May 2013, the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Biscoe J) dismissed the proceedings. His Honour held that the Minister had neither failed to have regard to mandatory scientific and socio-economic considerations, nor had regard to considerations prohibited by the Act. Biscoe J also considered that the applicants had not shown that the hydrogeological model on which the plan was based was so flawed that its use made the plan manifestly unreasonable or irrational. Furthermore, Biscoe J held that the plan was not defective in form, and that it did not involve an acquisition of property within the meaning of s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Meagher and Barrett JJA, and Tobias AJA) dismissed the applicants' appeal on 13 November 2014.  Their Honours held that the Minister was not required by the Act to consider a sound numerical hydrogeological or groundwater model before making the plan.  The Court of Appeal held that the Minister took into account flaws in the model that was used to make the plan, and that use of this model was not irrational.  Their Honours also held that the Minister had given due regard to the socio-economic impacts of the plan.

4. The applicants seek special leave to appeal to this Court.  The decisions of the Courts below are not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant granting special leave. There is no issue of principle to be considered by this Court.  Special leave is refused. 

5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
18 June 2015 P.A. Keane