| |
BRISBANE
9th July, 1990
Stevenson Finance Corporation Pty. Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Water Resources
(A89-57)
D E C I S I O N
By consent, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Commissioner granting License No 49168 is varied as follows:-
In Attachment A to the License by -
in the first paragraph inserting after "43374" the following "43386, 43387, 43388, 43389, 43390, 43392, 43393, 43394, 43395, 43396, 49163, 49164, 49165, 49166 and 49167"
deleting the second paragraph.
Member of the Land Court
Details
- AGLC
- Stevenson Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Water Resources [1990] QLC 21
- Case
- [1990] QLC 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Stevenson Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Water Resources was heard in the Land Court in Brisbane. The dispute revolved around the granting of a water license by the Commissioner of Water Resources to the respondent. Stevenson Finance Corporation, the appellant, contested the decision, seeking a review and variation of the license terms. The court was asked to determine the validity and scope of the water license granted by the Commissioner.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner had the authority to grant the water license in the manner he did, and if the terms of the license were properly defined and justified. The court had to examine the statutory framework governing water licenses and the extent to which the Commissioner's decision complied with relevant legislation and administrative procedures. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appellant's concerns about the license's terms were substantiated and warranted any alterations.
The court found that the Commissioner had the authority to grant the water license but identified several issues with the specific terms of the license as initially granted. The court held that certain sections of the license were either unnecessary or not supported by the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court varied the license by removing the contested sections and including additional water lot numbers as requested by the appellant. The decision was made by consent, and the appeal was allowed with the specified variations to the license.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner had the authority to grant the water license in the manner he did, and if the terms of the license were properly defined and justified. The court had to examine the statutory framework governing water licenses and the extent to which the Commissioner's decision complied with relevant legislation and administrative procedures. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appellant's concerns about the license's terms were substantiated and warranted any alterations.
The court found that the Commissioner had the authority to grant the water license but identified several issues with the specific terms of the license as initially granted. The court held that certain sections of the license were either unnecessary or not supported by the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court varied the license by removing the contested sections and including additional water lot numbers as requested by the appellant. The decision was made by consent, and the appeal was allowed with the specified variations to the license.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.