Hutchins Pastoral Co Pty Limited v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 236

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Hutchins Pastoral Co Pty Limited v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 236

APPLICANTS: Hutchins Pastoral Co Pty Limited and Others

PARTIES : FIRST RESPONDENT: Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000

SECOND RESPONDENT: State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S) : 41292 of 2006

CORAM: Biscoe J

KEY ISSUES: Practice and Procedure :- whether hearing date should be vacated pending hearing of appeal in other test cases.

LEGISLATION CITED: Harvey v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Tubbo Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 165

DATES OF HEARING: 25 July 2008

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 25 July 2008

APPLICANTS: Mr P. T. Taylor SC SOLICITORS: Taylor & Whitty LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENTS: Ms R. A. Pepper SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor's Office (NSW)

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

BISCOE J

25 July 2008

41292 of 2006

HUTCHINS PASTORAL CO PTY LIMITED AND ORS v MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2000 AND ANOR

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This matter has been set down for hearing for three weeks commencing on Monday 4 August 2008. Before me is a notice of motion by the applicants that the hearing dates be vacated. 2 The main issue in the substantive proceedings is the validity of amendments to a water sharing plan, the Lower Murrumbidgee Groundwater Source Plan 2003. That was also the issue in two cases decided together by Jagot J earlier this year: Harvey v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Tubbo Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWLEC 165. Her Honour's decision is on appeal. The applicant challenges the validity of the plan as amended on many grounds. In addition, there is a reliance claim, called the tenth claim in the applicants' Amended Points of Claim of 24 April 2008, where it is pleaded that (a) the first respondent, the Minister Administering the Water Management Act, and the second respondent, the State of New South Wales, were under a duty of care to prevent economic loss to the applicants; (b) that they by their servants or agents made a number of representations to the applicants that were false and/or erroneous; and (c) that by reason of those representations the respondents breached their duty whereby the applicants suffered loss and damage. There is a lively issue as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine that claim and there is a pending notice of motion by the respondents to strike it out. The representations which constitute part of that claim, as pleaded, overlap with other matters which are said to go to the validity of the water plan. 3 The applicants put forward two grounds for vacating the hearing date. The first ground is that the proceedings should be greatly truncated depending upon the outcome of the appeals in Harvey and Tubbo. The second ground is that the parties have not complied with directions of this Court concerning the filing and service of evidence and that the case is not prepared.