Piper v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 15

Piper v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 15

The applicant's sought amendment would fundamentally alter the approval in a way that the Minister did not and could not have approved under the statutory scheme. The proposed removal or replacement of key conditions would be beyond what is permissible on the original application, would offend long-standing principles about changing the substance of approvals (the Mison principle), and should be the subject of a new statutory process. Accordingly, leave to amend the application is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Interlocutory – Application to Amend
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion to amend dismissed; leave to amend refused.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Applications' 'appeal Competency' 'discretionary Conditions on Approvals' 'conversion of Statutory Approvals' 'civil Procedure']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['amendment of Applications' 'appeal Competency' 'discretionary Conditions on Approvals' 'conversion of Statutory Approvals' 'civil Procedure']

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 1 Appeal / Interlocutory – Application to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the Class 1 application to alter or remove a condition of flood work approval' "Whether the conversion and update of conditions on the approval constituted a 'decision imposing a discretionary condition' under s 368(1)(i) Water Management Act 2000" 'If leave to amend is refused, whether the appeal is competent as filed']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's sought amendment would fundamentally alter the approval in a way that the Minister did not and could not have approved under the statutory scheme. The proposed removal or replacement of key conditions would be beyond what is permissible on the original application, would offend long-standing principles about changing the substance of approvals (the Mison principle), and should be the subject of a new statutory process. Accordingly, leave to amend the application is refused.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion to amend dismissed; leave to amend refused.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 31 January 2017 is dismissed, and leave to amend is refused." "The parties' costs on that Notice of Motion are reserved." "The matter is stood over to the Registrar's list on Wednesday, 15 March 2017, for further case management and directions."]