Lee v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 432

Lee v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 432

The Water Act 2007 (Cth) and challenged provisions are not laws with respect to trade and commerce under s 51(i), but are laws with respect to external affairs (s 51(xxix)); ss 99 and 100 do not apply. The Act does not discriminate against interstate trade or confer protection on intrastate trade as required for s 92. The provisions do not impair State functions per the Melbourne Corporation principle. Applicants lack standing for s 101 (Inter-State Commission) claim. Reduction in water entitlements and increased costs do not amount to a compensable acquisition of property from the applicants under s 254 as no measurable advantage is gained by the Commonwealth. Consequently, applicants...

Parties
Applicant: Daniel Thomas Lee; Applicant: Graeme Peter James Gropler; Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Respondent: Murray Darling Basin Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment on Interlocutory Application and Summary Judgment
Outcome
proceeding dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Challenge to Validity of Water Act 2007, Trade and Commerce Power, External Affairs Power, Acquisition of Property, Protection of Interstate Trade, Melbourne Corporation Principle, Water Entitlements, Standing, Just Terms, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Challenge to Validity of Water Act 2007 Trade and Commerce Power External Affairs Power Acquisition of Property Protection of Interstate Trade +5 more

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Thomas Lee

Applicant

Graeme Peter James Gropler

Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia

Respondent

Murray Darling Basin Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment on Interlocutory Application and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Water Act 2007 (Cth) or parts of it violate ss 99 and 100 of the Constitution by impermissibly affecting trade, commerce, or abridging the rights to water for irrigation
  2. 2 Whether the Act is capable of being made pursuant to the trade and commerce power (s 51(i))
  3. 3 Whether some extraction limits and trading limits discriminate against interstate trade and commerce or confer protection on intrastate trade

Ratio Decidendi

The Water Act 2007 (Cth) and challenged provisions are not laws with respect to trade and commerce under s 51(i), but are laws with respect to external affairs (s 51(xxix)); ss 99 and 100 do not apply. The Act does not discriminate against interstate trade or confer protection on intrastate trade as required for s 92. The provisions do not impair State functions per the Melbourne Corporation principle. Applicants lack standing for s 101 (Inter-State Commission) claim. Reduction in water entitlements and increased costs do not amount to a compensable acquisition of property from the applicants under s 254 as no measurable advantage is gained by the Commonwealth. Consequently, applicants...

Court Disposition

proceeding dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to amend the statement of claim is refused.
  • The interlocutory application filed by the applicants on 8 July 2013 is dismissed.