Bailey & Anor v Director-General Department of Land and Water Conservation

In *Bailey & Anor v Director-General Department of Land and Water Conservation*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellants, Bailey and another, and the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The core of the disagreement concerned the validity of a notice issued by the Director-General under s 34(1) of the *Water Management Act 2000* (NSW) which purported to revoke a water access licence.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the notice of revocation issued by the Director-General was valid and effective in law. This involved determining whether the Director-General had the power to issue such a notice under the relevant provisions of the *Water Management Act 2000* (NSW) and, if so, whether the notice complied with the procedural requirements mandated by the Act.

The Court reasoned that the Director-General's power to revoke a water access licence under s 34(1) of the *Water Management Act 2000* (NSW) was not an unfettered discretion. Instead, it was a power that could only be exercised in circumstances where the licence holder had failed to comply with a condition of the licence or a provision of the Act. The Court found that the notice of revocation in this instance was invalid because the Director-General had not established that the appellants had failed to comply with any such condition or provision. The Court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for a proper evidentiary basis before such a significant power could be exercised.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the notice of revocation.