Water Administration Ministerial Corporation v Mills Engsta Pty Ltd v Mills

The Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (WAMC) and Engsta Pty Ltd (Engsta) were the parties involved in this dispute before the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The core of the disagreement concerned the WAMC's power to approve "controlled works" under the *Water Act 1912* (NSW), specifically whether such approval could be granted conditionally or unconditionally, and the nature of conditions that could be imposed. Engsta had sought approval for controlled works, and the WAMC's response, or lack thereof, formed the basis of the litigation.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the scope of the WAMC's power to approve controlled works under sections 171(1)(a) and 174(2)(a) of the *Water Act 1912*. Central to this was the question of whether the WAMC could grant approval subject to conditions, and if so, what limitations, if any, applied to the types of conditions that could be imposed. The court also had to consider the effect of a controlled work having a "proscribed effect" within the meaning of the Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the statutory framework contemplated the possibility of imposing conditions on the approval of controlled works. The power to approve was not necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition. The court analysed the relevant provisions of the *Water Act 1912* to ascertain the legislative intent regarding the flexibility afforded to the WAMC in managing watercourses and floodplains. The precise reasoning regarding the nature and scope of permissible conditions, and the effect of a proscribed effect, led to the conclusion that the WAMC's actions or stance in relation to Engsta's application were not in accordance with the law.

The appeal was upheld.