NOBLE v DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 225

NOBLE v DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 225

Strict compliance with the requirements of s10(3) of the Water Act 1912 is not a precondition to the validity of a water licence application; substantial compliance is sufficient, especially where affected parties have adequate information and no unfairness has resulted.

Parties
Appellant: Mrs Noble; First Respondent: Department of Land and Water Conservation; Second Respondents: Mr and Mrs Eldridge
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal From Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Licensing, Statutory Construction, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Water Law Licensing Statutory Construction Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Noble

Appellant

Department of Land and Water Conservation

First Respondent

Mr and Mrs Eldridge

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal From Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide particulars in a water licence application invalidates the application
  2. 2 Whether the requirements under s10(3) of the Water Act 1912 are mandatory or directory
  3. 3 Whether the particulars required to be advertised under s11(1) of the Water Act must include all specifics required by s10(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Strict compliance with the requirements of s10(3) of the Water Act 1912 is not a precondition to the validity of a water licence application; substantial compliance is sufficient, especially where affected parties have adequate information and no unfairness has resulted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the respondents