Metjac Holdings Pty Ltd v Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia by Metjac Holdings Pty Ltd (Metjac) against a decision of the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court). The dispute arose from Metjac's application for a water allocation under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) (NRM Act). Metjac had applied for the allocation as an "existing user" of water from a prescribed watercourse, based on its historical activities and investments related to irrigating land it owned. However, by the time the Minister made a decision on Metjac's application, Metjac no longer held an interest in the relevant irrigable land, having sold it while under receivership.

The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Metjac was entitled to a water allocation as an "existing user" despite no longer owning the irrigable land or having a future requirement for water, and whether the ERD Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the Minister's decision without a cross-appeal. The Supreme Court was required to interpret the provisions of the NRM Act, particularly section 164N concerning the allocation of water to existing users, and section 164R regarding the law governing decisions under that Part.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the ERD Court's decision, reasoned that under section 164N of the NRM Act, an "existing user" is entitled to a water allocation based on their reasonable requirements during the establishment period or for a development to which they were legally committed or had committed significant resources. Crucially, the Court found that the right to a water allocation is personal and not transferable until a licence and allocation have been granted. Furthermore, section 164N(12) provides that if an existing user divests themselves of land in relation to which their rights arise, the acquirer of the land becomes the existing user. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that at the time the Minister made the decision, Metjac had divested itself of the land and therefore had no future requirement for water in relation to that land. Consequently, the Minister's decision to grant an allocation was flawed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the ERD Court's decision to set aside the Minister's decision and remit the matter for further consideration. The Court found that the ERD Court had not exceeded its jurisdiction, as its power to review the Minister's decision included the authority to set it aside. The Court also confirmed that the application of section 164N(12) at the time of the Minister's decision, as mandated by section 164R, did not constitute an impermissible retrospective operation of the law.