Oshlack v Rous Water

Case [2011] NSWLEC 73


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Oshlack v Rous Water [2011] NSWLEC 73
Hearing dates:14 March 2011
Decision date: 28 April 2011
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:

Preliminary questions answered as follows:

(a) Was the First Respondent, Rous Water, required to comply with the provisions of ss 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with respect to the impacts on human health and the environment of adding fluorine to the water supply when determining to approve the construction and operation of the Clunes, Dorroughby, Corndale and Knockrow fluoridation plants? Yes, except that insofar as any of those plants was the subject of the direction of 12 December 2007 to add fluorine to the Richmond Valley Water Supply the First Respondent was required to comply with s 111 but not s 112;

(b) Was the Second Respondent, Ballina Shire Council, required to comply with the provisions of ss 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act with respect to the impacts on human health and the environment of adding fluorine to the water supply when determining to approve the construction of the Marom Creek Fluoridation plant? Yes.

Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW:- whether an activity by a water supply authority pursuant to an approval or direction under the Fluoridation of Public Waters Supplies Act 1957 to add fluorine to the water supply under its control is subject to ss 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Legislation Cited: Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 (Cth) ss 89, 132
Code of Practice for the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies
Constitution s 109
Dangerous Goods Act 1975
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ss 111, 112, 113, 114
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 cl 228
Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 ss 3, 6, 6A, 6B, 11
Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulation 2007 cll 5, 6, 7, 8
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Roads Act 1993 s 88
Cases Cited: Coalcliff Community Association Inc v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning [1999] NSWCA 317, 106 LGERA 243
Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour Ltd v Fuller [1986] HCA 42, 161 CLR 47
Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment [2006] HCA 5, 225 CLR 130
Parks and Playgrounds Movement Inc v Newcastle City Council [2010] NSWLEC 231
Prineas v Forestry Commission of NSW (1983) 49 LGRA 402
Category:Separate question
Parties: Al Oshlack (Applicant)
Rous Water (First Respondent)
Ballina Shire Council (Second Respondent)
Lismore City Council (Third Respondent)
Representation: Mr J Johnson (Applicant)
Mr N J Williams SC (Respondents)
N/A (Applicant)
Blake Dawson (Respondents)
File Number(s):40570 of 2010

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. The addition of fluorine to public water supplies in New South Wales is regulated by the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 ( Fluoridation Act ). Under that Act, the Secretary of the Department of Health may grant approval…

Continue reading Oshlack v Rous Water

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Oshlack v Rous Water [2011] NSWLEC 73
Case
[2011] NSWLEC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oshlack v Rous Water involves a challenge to the legality of decisions made by Rous Water and Ballina Shire Council to approve the construction and operation of fluoridation plants in certain areas. The plaintiffs sought a judicial review of these decisions, questioning the respondents' compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to the environmental and health impacts of fluoridation. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the legal obligations of the respondents under the Act in approving the construction and operation of these plants.

The court was required to decide whether Rous Water and Ballina Shire Council were obligated to comply with sections 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act when approving the fluoridation plants. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondents were required to consider the impacts on human health and the environment when making their decisions. The plaintiffs argued that the respondents failed to properly consider these impacts, thereby acting outside the scope of their legal authority.

The court found that Rous Water was required to comply with section 111 of the Act, which pertains to the consideration of environmental effects, but not section 112, which relates to the consideration of effects on human health, insofar as the plants were subject to a specific direction to add fluorine to the Richmond Valley Water Supply. In contrast, Ballina Shire Council was found to be required to comply with both sections 111 and 112 when approving the Marom Creek Fluoridation plant. The court's reasoning was based on the specific language of the Act and the particular circumstances of the direction issued by the Minister for Health in relation to the Richmond Valley Water Supply.

The court's determination clarified the legal obligations of the respondents in approving the fluoridation plants, providing guidance on the scope of their environmental and health impact assessments. The orders of the court specified that Rous Water must comply with section 111 but not section 112 for certain plants, while Ballina Shire Council must comply with both sections for the Marom Creek Fluoridation plant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Preliminary questions answered as follows:

(a) Was the First Respondent, Rous Water, required to comply with the provisions of ss 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with respect to the impacts on human health and the environment of adding fluorine to the water supply when determining to approve the construction and operation of the Clunes, Dorroughby, Corndale and Knockrow fluoridation plants? Yes, except that insofar as any of those plants was the subject of the direction of 12 December 2007 to add fluorine to the Richmond Valley Water Supply the First Respondent was required to comply with s 111 but not s 112;

(b) Was the Second Respondent, Ballina Shire Council, required to comply with the provisions of ss 111 and 112 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act with respect to the impacts on human health and the environment of adding fluorine to the water supply when determining to approve the construction of the Marom Creek Fluoridation plant? Yes.

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.