Brenchley v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000

Case [2011] NSWLEC 192


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brenchley v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2011] NSWLEC 192
Hearing dates:8 November 2011
Decision date: 08 November 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 2
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:

Caveat registered in the Water Access Licence Register under the Water Management Act 2000 extended until 11 November 2011; Second Respondents restrained until 11 November 2011 from selling or disposing of a water access licence.

Catchwords: CAVEATS:- caveat registered in the Water Access Licence Register under the Water Management Act 2000 - interlocutory extension of caveat and injunction restraining sale or disposal of water access licence.
Legislation Cited: Water Management Act 2000
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 25.8
Cases Cited: Mueller v Austin [2010] NSWLEC 137
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Anthony Reginald Brenchley (Applicant)
Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (First Respondent)
Daniel Peter Juratowitch and Andrew James Barnden as Trustee for Steven Pettaras (Second Respondents)
Representation: COUNSEL:
Mr M Seymour (Applicant)
Ms K Van Munster, solicitor (Second Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Marsdens (Applicant)
Leonard Legal (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):21009 of 2011

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. These proceedings were commenced about twenty minutes ago by Anthony Reginald Brenchley against the Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 and the trustees in bankruptcy of Steven Pettaras.

  1. I am dealing with Mr Brenchley's urgent notice of motion for an interlocutory order to extend the operation of his caveat registered in the Water Access Licence Register under the Water Management Act 2000 and to restrain the trustees from selling or disposing of Water Access Licence 6595, which is the subject of his caveat.

  1. I considered the jurisdiction of this Court to extend the operation of a caveat registered in the Water Access License Register under the Water Management Act in Mueller v Austin [2010] NSWLEC 137.

  1. The applicant claims that the subject water access licence was sold to him by Mr Pettaras under a handwritten contract dated 10 January 2010, a copy of which is in evidence. Mr Pettaras later became bankrupt. On 13 April 2011 he and his trustees in bankruptcy contracted to sell the same water access licence to Abata Pty Ltd. It is unclear on the evidence whether that contract has been completed. The applicant claims priority as the earlier purchaser for value in time.

  1. It is apparent that it is necessary for Abata Pty Ltd to be joined as a respondent.

  1. The trustees, but not the Minister, are legally represented before me, on very short notice. In view of the urgency with which the proceedings have been brought on, the trustees have not had a reasonable opportunity to put on evidence apart from tendering the front page of the Abata Pty Ltd contract, nor to formulate submissions.

  1. On the evidence, I am satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo for a period of three days until Friday 11 November 2011. By that time, the applicant should have amended his proceedings to join Abata Pty Ltd and to have served the respondents with the evidence on which he intends to rely. The respondents may be in a position before that date to serve their evidence.

  1. Upon the applicant, by his counsel, having provided the Court with the usual undertaking as to damages under r 25.8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, the Court orders:

1.   The notice of motion filed in Court today be returnable instanter and heard ex parte.

2.   Until 11 November 2011, order that the second respondents be restrained from the sale or disposal of Water Access Licence 6595.

3.   Order that Caveat No AG255542K be extended until 11 November 2011.

4.   Direct the applicant to serve a copy of the class two application, any amended application, the notice of motion dated 8 November 2011 and these orders on the respondents and Abata Pty Ltd by 4pm on 8 November 2011.

5.   Stand over the proceedings and the notice of motion to Friday 11 November 2011 before the list judge.

6.   Liberty to apply on short notice.

Details
AGLC
Brenchley v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2011] NSWLEC 192
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brenchley, a water access licence holder, sought to extend a caveat over a water access licence registered in the Water Access Licence Register under the Water Management Act 2000, and to restrain the second respondents from selling or disposing of the licence. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The key legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Water Management Act 2000 and the court's power to grant injunctive relief. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the caveat could be extended beyond its initial expiry date, and if the respondents could be restrained from disposing of the licence until the caveat was resolved.

The court found that the Water Management Act 2000 did not explicitly preclude the extension of a caveat beyond its initial expiry date, and that there was a strong public interest in ensuring that the issues raised by the caveat were resolved. The court held that it had the inherent jurisdiction to extend the caveat and grant the injunctive relief sought by the applicant. The court also considered that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the respondents had no immediate need to sell the licence and the applicant had a significant interest in protecting their water rights. The court concluded that the respondents should be restrained from disposing of the licence until the caveat was resolved.

The orders of the court were that the caveat be extended until 11 November 2011, and that the second respondents be restrained from selling or disposing of the water access licence until that date. These orders were made to ensure that the issues raised by the caveat were resolved, and to protect the applicant's water rights. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that water rights are protected and that the public interest is served in the management of water resources in Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

Caveat registered in the Water Access Licence Register under the Water Management Act 2000 extended until 11 November 2011; Second Respondents restrained until 11 November 2011 from selling or disposing of a water access licence.

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.