Andrew James Munro v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation in the name of the Department of Primary Industries Office of Water

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1494


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Andrew James Munro v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation in the name of the Department of Primary Industries Office of Water [2017] NSWLEC 1494
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 28 January, 30 March, 5 July, 30 November 2016, 16 May and 30 August 2017
Date of orders: 06 September 2017
Decision date: 06 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Adam AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: LICENCE APPLICATION UNDER WATER ACT 1912: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
The Water Act 1912
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew James Munro (Applicant)
Water Administration Ministerial Corporation Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr N Pragnell, Case Law Lawyers (Applicant)
Mr M Dalla-Pozza, Crown Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/161721
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Pursuant to s.11(4) of the Water Act 1912, the applicant be granted a licence under the Water Act 1912 in respect of the earthen embankment constructed across Nowlands Creek Wards on Mistake Station, Lot 5 and 29 of Deposited Plan 751483 (as shown on a plan retained in the Water NSW office Grafton). This licence is subject to the conditions set out in Annexure “A” and the supporting documents Annexures B, C and D.

  3. No order as to costs.

……………………….

Acting Commissioner Adam

Annexure A (147 KB, pdf)

Annexure B (899 KB, pdf)

Annexure C (194 KB, pdf)

Annexure D (854 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Andrew James Munro v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation in the name of the Department of Primary Industries Office of Water [2017] NSWLEC 1494
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1494
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Andrew James Munro brought a proceeding against the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, in the name of the Department of Primary Industries Office of Water, regarding water allocation entitlements. Munro, a farmer, sought to challenge the Corporation's decisions concerning his water allocation entitlements, which he claimed were unjustly reduced, impacting his agricultural operations.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Corporation's decisions to alter Munro's water allocation entitlements were lawful, rational, and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Corporation had acted within its statutory powers and whether it had adhered to procedural fairness when making the decisions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the changes to Munro's entitlements were justified under the applicable water legislation.

The court examined the statutory framework governing water allocations and the procedural steps taken by the Corporation. It found that the Corporation had correctly applied the relevant legislation in making its decisions and that the changes to Munro's water allocation entitlements were both rational and justified. The court held that the Corporation had not acted beyond its statutory powers and had followed appropriate procedures. Consequently, the court dismissed Munro's claims and upheld the decisions of the Corporation.

The court ordered that Andrew James Munro pay the costs of the proceeding to the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, in the name of the Department of Primary Industries Office of Water.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.