Nitschke v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1998] QLC 26
•12 March 1998
|
BRISBANE
12 MARCH 1998
Re: A97-60
An appeal from a decision of the Chief Executive,
Department of Natural Resources -
Water Resources Act 1989
Appellant: J.R. Nitschke
DECISION - JURISDICTION OF LAND COURT
This appeal is from the decision of the chief executive, Department of Natural Resources, to transfer, renew and amend certain Waterworks Licences on the application by Esplanade Investments Pty Ltd; Elenium Pty Ltd; Darling Downs Piggery Pty Ltd and Danmeat Pty Ltd.
On an application by the respondent chief executive, it is necessary to determine whether the Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
The matter was called on for the hearing of the preliminary jurisdiction issue in Warwick on 3 December 1997. Mr Nitschke appeared in person. A number of other appeals against the same decision were called on for hearing of the same preliminary issue and legal argument was heard on behalf of several appellants who opposed the application of the chief executive to have the appeals struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Mr Nitschke's submission was that he wished to rely on the legal argument against the application in those matters, which by agreement of all parties were heard first. There were no objections raised by the instructing solicitor for the appellants in those matters.
The decision in those appeals, A97-57 and A97-58 is delivered today and the reasons are, in part, relevant to this appeal.
Mr Nitschke was not an objector to the application as advertised and is not the owner of land situated within the prescribed distance within which an owner of land has the right to object to an application about a subartesian bore, not on a watercourse.
I found in the before-mentioned decision that the chief executive's decision was made on 29 August 1997 in response to an application dated 25 March 1997 which amended an earlier application made before certain amendments to the Water Resources Act 1989, on 9 December 1996. I also found that vested rights of appeal, if any, related to the legislation which came into effect on 9 December 1996.
In this appeal I find that the appellant has no right of appeal under the legislation which existed at the date of the chief executive's decision.
The appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
RE WENCK
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0