Ramsay v Minister for Lands and Water

The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, constituted by Bell CJ, Payne and Adamson JJA, considered an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Court to hear Class 1 appeals under sections 368(1)(a) and (c) of the *Water Management Act 2000* (NSW). The dispute arose from the Minister for Lands and Water's decisions regarding applications for floodplain harvesting (regulated river) access licences. The applicants contended that the Minister's determinations to grant licences with lower share components than had been sought constituted refusals to grant the licences as applied for, and that the decision as to the share component amounted to the imposition of a discretionary condition.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Minister's decisions to grant access licences with reduced share components were, in substance, refusals to grant the licences sought, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court under section 368(1)(a) of the Act. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the Minister's decision regarding the share component of an access licence constituted the imposition of a discretionary condition, which would also engage the Court's appellate jurisdiction under section 368(1)(c).

The Court reasoned that the *Water Management Act 2000* contemplates that the Minister has a discretion in determining the share component of an access licence. The Act does not mandate that a licence must be granted with the exact share component applied for. Therefore, a decision to grant a licence with a lower share component than sought was not a refusal to grant the licence, but rather an exercise of the Minister's statutory discretion in determining the terms of the licence. Consequently, such a decision did not fall within the ambit of section 368(1)(a) as a refusal, nor did it constitute the imposition of a discretionary condition in a manner that would attract the Court's jurisdiction under section 368(1)(c). The Court found that the Minister had acted within their statutory powers.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.