› Whether Lake Bennett constitutes a “waterway” within the meaning of the Water Act 1992 (NT)
› Effect of Lake Bennett (Land Title) Act 2005 (NT)
› Property in and rights to the use, flow and control of water in Lake Bennett vested in the Northern Territory
Evidence
› Admissibility
› Whether evidence sought to be relied upon is expert or opinion
› Absence of proper factual foundation
› Objection upheld
› Evidence refused
Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), ss 76, 79
Quick Take
1An artificial reservoir created by damming pre-existing waterways falls squarely within the definition of 'waterway' in s 4(e) of the Water Act 1992 (NT), with the consequence that property in and rights to the use, flow and control of the water are vested in the Northern Territory under s 9.
2Where freehold title to a lake bed was created by statute (Lake Bennett (Land Title) Act 2005 (NT)) that itself contemplated continuing regulation of the water under the Water Act — including requiring a water extraction licence — ownership of the land does not carry ownership of the water.
3A claim for equitable restitution or compensation arising from statutory vesting of water rights must identify a recognised cause of action with properly pleaded material facts; unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action in Australian law but a unifying concept explaining particular restitutionary remedies.
Case Details
Citation[2026] NTSC 65
CourtNTSC
JurisdictionNorthern Territory
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
