Aubrey Robert Mills v Local Land Services [2017] NSWLEC 25

Aubrey Robert Mills v Local Land Services [2017] NSWLEC 25

The Long Term Grazing Permit Policy and Procedures was a relevant but not determinative consideration. Clause 2.6 was not the sole criterion for deciding whether to issue the permit, and the present and historical absence of fencing between the relevant travelling stock reserve land and Aralu was a relevant consideration. The Court preferred the respondent's evidence that the contested land was historically unfenced from a holding for the purposes of subclause 2.10.4. Although the Court could impose conditions, the applicant's proposed fencing and grid conditions were insufficiently specific and inadequate to address the practical concerns, potential conflict with Aralu Farming, consent...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal / Appeal to the Land and Environment Court From a Civil and Administrative Tribunal Decision Confirming Refusal to Issue a Long Term Grazing Permit; Rehearing With Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['long Term Grazing Permit' 'travelling Stock Reserve' 'exercise of Discretion' 'policy Fettering Discretion' 'fencing Conditions' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing']
['administrative Law' 'land and Environment' 'local Land Services'] ['long Term Grazing Permit' 'travelling Stock Reserve' 'exercise of Discretion' 'policy Fettering Discretion' 'fencing Conditions' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing']

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

Class 3 Appeal / Appeal to the Land and Environment Court From a Civil and Administrative Tribunal Decision Confirming Refusal to Issue a Long Term Grazing Permit; Rehearing With Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the decision to issue a Long Term Grazing Permit was required to be made in accordance with the Long Term Grazing Permit Policy and Procedures' 'Whether clause 2.6 of the Long Term Grazing Permit Policy and Procedures was the sole criterion for determining the application' 'Whether subclause 2.10.4 of the Long Term Grazing Permit Policy and Procedures applied to the decision to issue a Long Term Grazing Permit' 'Whether the relevant land was ever fenced' 'Whether the fact that the relevant land was presently unfenced could or should be dealt with by issuing a Long Term Grazing Permit subject to conditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The Long Term Grazing Permit Policy and Procedures was a relevant but not determinative consideration. Clause 2.6 was not the sole criterion for deciding whether to issue the permit, and the present and historical absence of fencing between the relevant travelling stock reserve land and Aralu was a relevant consideration. The Court preferred the respondent's evidence that the contested land was historically unfenced from a holding for the purposes of subclause 2.10.4. Although the Court could impose conditions, the applicant's proposed fencing and grid conditions were insufficiently specific and inadequate to address the practical concerns, potential conflict with Aralu Farming, consent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Costs reserved.']