Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Natural Resources Access Regulator v Lidokew Pty Ltd [2023] NSWLEC 130 Hearing dates: 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 October 2022 Date of orders: 28 November 2023 Decision date: 28 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Duggan J Decision: See paragraphs 306 and 307
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES – ss 60C(1)(b), 60C(2), 91I(2) and 91H(2) of the Water Management Act – plea of not guilty – circumstantial evidence – whether defendant took water otherwise than in accordance with access licence – crop water requirements of cotton farm – available rainwater – stored water availability – whether defendant took water while metering equipment was not operating properly – the meaning of “not operating properly” – no honest and reasonable mistake of fact
Legislation Cited: Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Water Management Amendment Act 2018 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bogdanovski v Buckingham (1989) VR 897
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1983) 153 CLR 521
CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440
He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523
Ozbinay v Crowley (1993) 17 MVR 176
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 306
Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary (Online)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Natural Resources Access Regulator (Prosecutor) Lidokew Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
H El-Hage and A Brown (Prosecutor)
C R Ireland (Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Prosecutor)
Bell & Johnson Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/88368, 2020/88369, 2020/88370, 2020/187127, 2021/181935, 2021/181936 Publication restriction: No
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Nature of proceedings
Facts
Relevant legislative provisions
Essential elements of the offence – Water Take Charges
Water demand of the cotton crop for each water year
Evidence
Prosecution evidence
Dr Wayne Meyer
Antecedent soil moisture at beginning of cropping
Defendant’s evidence
Prosecutor’s submissions
Defendant’s submissions
Findings on crop water requirements
Crop growing period
Antecedent crop moisture levels
Rainfall on Havana North
WFIE
The IrriSAT computer programme
The ±15% rate of uncertainty
Rainwater available
Evidence
Prosecutor’s evidence
Professor Albert Van Dijk
Mr Andrew Falkenmire
Defendant’s evidence
Mr James Purcell
Prosecutor’s submissions
Defendant’s submissions
Findings on rainfall
Stored water availability
Evidence
Prosecutor’s evidence
Mr Robert Day
Defendant’s evidence
Mr James Purcell
Prosecutor’s submissions on stored water availability
Defendant’s submissions on stored water availability
Findings on stored water availability
Submissions on evidence as to guilt on amount of water taken
Prosecutor’s submissions
Defendant’s submissions
Findings on evidence of guilt on amount of water taken
The Metering Charges
Essential elements of the offence – The Metering Charges
Evidence
Prosecution evidence
Mr Andrew Judge
Defendant’s evidence
Prosecutor’s submissions on the Metering Charges
Defendant’s submissions on the Metering Charges
Evidence of fair wear and tear
Operate properly and proper operation
Evidence does not prove meters were not operating properly or a failure to ensure proper operation
The error rates vary as between the meters
No…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Natural Resources Access Regulator v Lidokew Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around whether Lidokew had indeed exceeded the permitted groundwater extraction limits, and if so, what the appropriate consequences should be. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and their application to the facts, including whether the Regulator had properly notified Lidokew of the alleged breaches and if Lidokew had a valid defence or mitigation for its actions. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the extent of Lidokew’s liability under the statutory regime and the appropriate remedies to be imposed.
In its decision, the Federal Court found that Lidokew had indeed exceeded the permitted groundwater extraction limits. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory obligations designed to manage and conserve natural resources. It held that the Regulator had sufficiently notified Lidokew of the alleged breaches and that Lidokew did not have a valid defence or sufficient mitigation for its actions. Consequently, the court imposed significant penalties on Lidokew and ordered an injunction to prevent further unlawful extraction. The final orders, as outlined in paragraphs 306 and 307, detailed the specific penalties, the terms of the injunction, and other consequential orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs 306 and 307
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.