Szabo & Associates News & Updates

Last year, in the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment (2021), the judge found that there was a novel duty of care owed by the Minister to Australian children who might suffer ‘catastrophic harm’ from the climate change implied by the approval given to an extension of the Whitehaven Vickery coal mine in New South Wales.

In step with current trends to update environmental legislation and expand the scope of liability for environmental offences, the NSW parliament has recently passed some important changes to environmental legislation administered by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

Have you had a development application to a local council refused or had unacceptable conditions imposed on the approval?  If so, an appeal against the decision may be possible to the NSW Land and Environment Court. 

Compensation in compulsory purchase situations is usually calculated by reference to what the dispossessed landowner has lost. Of primary importance is the market value of the land being acquired, as well as the costs incurred for advice and relocation costs incurred. Reforms introduced in 2017, however, mean that dispossessed landowners can now seek compensation on the basis of ‘reinstatement’ elsewhere. This means that compensation can be claimed based on what the dispossessed owner is required to acquire in order to reinstate the business in another location rather than the value of what has been lost as a result of the compulsory purchase.

The NSW Land and Environment Court (LEC) recently considered proceedings brought against the Sydney Water Corporation. A key aspect was the context in which the Corporation was operating, its statutory functions and the conditions governing the exercise of those functions.