Phelps and Ors v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2024] NSWLEC 29

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Phelps and Ors v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2024] NSWLEC 29 Hearing dates: 04 March 2024 Date of orders: 05 March 2024 Decision date: 05 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Class 4 Before: Robson J Decision: See orders at [35]-[36] Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Notice of motion to amend summons — Where amendment not prejudicial to respondent — Notice of motion granted Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Jonathon Phelps (First Applicant) Dale Smith (Second Applicant) Richard Schwager (Third Applicant) Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Prince SC with A Searle (Applicants) H El-Hage SC with M Thompson (Respondent)

Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Applicants) Department of Planning and Environment (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/00302716 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. By summons filed 22 September 2023, Jonathon Phelps, Dale Smith, and Richard Swagger (collectively, the 'applicants') seek relief by way of judicial review of a decision made by the Minister administering the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) ('Minister') on 22 June 2023 to make the Available Water Determination Order for Regulated River Water Sources 2023 ('2023 decision'). The applicants are landholders who hold supplementary water access licences for the Lower Namoi Regulated River Water Source ('Lower Namoi Water Source') under the Water Sharing Plan for the Upper Namoi and Lower Namoi Regulated River Water Sources 2016 ('Namoi WSP'). 2. By notice of motion filed 27 February 2024, and which proceeded before me as a matter of some urgency as Duty Judge yesterday, the applicants seek leave to amend their summons to include a further claim (as Ground 8) that the 2023 decision was infected by jurisdictional error related to a reasonable apprehension of bias.