NA & J Investments Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2)

In the case of NA & J Investments Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2), the applicants sought to have various parts of their claims struck out, while the respondents sought to have other parts of the claims struck out. The applicants argued that all claims should be determined by a single judge, either from the Land and Environment Court or the Supreme Court. The respondents opposed this application, asserting that the claims should be struck out and the proceedings should be stayed until further notice.

The court was required to decide whether the claims made by the applicants were valid and whether they fell within the jurisdiction of the court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicants had a reasonable cause of action in alleging that the respondents failed to consider representations made on their behalf when making or amending a water sharing plan. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicants' claim for negligent misrepresentation fell within the court's jurisdiction.

The court found that the claims made by the applicants were not valid and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The court struck out the relevant parts of the claims and directed the applicants to file amended points of claim. The court also ordered the applicants to provide the respondents with details of the evidence they intended to rely on and to notify them of the identity of experts they intended to retain. The court stayed the proceedings until further notice to allow for further directions to be given.

The court's final orders included striking out certain paragraphs of the applicants' claims, directing the applicants to file amended points of claim, and ordering the applicants to provide the respondents with details of the evidence they intended to rely on and the identity of experts they intended to retain. The court also stayed the proceedings until further notice.