Michelmore v Minister for Environment and Conservation

The case involves an appeal by dairy farmers against a decision by the Minister for Environment and Conservation to refuse their application for a water licence. The applicants sought the licence to extract water from an unconfined aquifer for milk cooling and dairy washing. The Minister denied the application, citing the inability to allocate water in line with the relevant water allocation plan, as the application was submitted more than a month after the specified deadline. The Environment, Resources and Development Court upheld the Minister's decision, dismissing the farmers' appeal. The appellants now challenge this decision before the higher court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's refusal to grant the water licence was justified under the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1997. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Minister's obligation to refuse an application that could not be endorsed with a water allocation consistent with the relevant water allocation plan was discretionary or mandatory. Another key issue was whether the Minister's decision aligned with the statutory requirement to act in the public interest.

The court held that the statutory language in the Act obliged the Minister to refuse the application if it was not possible to endorse a water allocation consistent with the water allocation plan. The court interpreted the term "may" in the relevant section as mandatory, not discretionary. The court found that the Minister's decision was consistent with the statutory requirements, as the applicants' request was beyond the permissible timeframe outlined in the water allocation plan. Additionally, the court determined that the Minister's decision was in the public interest as it adhered to the water allocation plan and the statutory mandate.

The court ultimately affirmed the ERD Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The refusal of the water licence application by the Minister was upheld as consistent with the statutory framework, and the court found no basis to interfere with the Minister's decision.