Mueller v Austin [2010] NSWLEC 137

Mueller v Austin [2010] NSWLEC 137

Given the respondents' consent without admissions, the pending ministerial correction application, and the likelihood that an appeal from the Minister's decision would overtake the present proceedings, it was appropriate to extend the operation of the caveat until the Court determines the principal application and to stand the proceedings over for directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Extension of Operation of a Caveat Registered in the Water Access Licence Register Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Interlocutory Notice of Motion
Outcome
The applicants' interlocutory notice of motion was granted by consent; the caveat was extended, the proceedings were stood over for directions, and costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['water Access Licences' 'water Access Licence Register' 'caveats' 'extension of Caveat' 'correction of Access Register']
['water Law' 'administrative Law'] ['water Access Licences' 'water Access Licence Register' 'caveats' 'extension of Caveat' 'correction of Access Register']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Concerning Extension of Operation of a Caveat Registered in the Water Access Licence Register Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Interlocutory Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the operation of caveat number AE217720C registered in the Water Access Licence Register should be extended until the Court determines the principal application.' "Whether the proceedings should be stood over pending the Minister for Water's decision on the applicants' application to correct the Access Register and any likely appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the respondents' consent without admissions, the pending ministerial correction application, and the likelihood that an appeal from the Minister's decision would overtake the present proceedings, it was appropriate to extend the operation of the caveat until the Court determines the principal application and to stand the proceedings over for directions.

Court Disposition

The applicants' interlocutory notice of motion was granted by consent; the caveat was extended, the proceedings were stood over for directions, and costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to cll 6(3) and 8(c) of Schedule 1A to the Water Management Act 2000 the operation of caveat number AE217720C be extended until the Court determines the principal application in this matter.' 'The proceedings are stood over to Friday 27 August 2010 before the List Judge for directions.' "If the decision...