Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd v NSW Environment Protection Authority

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1352


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd v NSW Environment Protection Authority [2018] NSWLEC 1352
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 10 July 2018
Date of orders: 10 July 2018
Decision date: 10 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Gray C
Decision:

See [5] below

Catchwords: APPEAL – application for transfer of environment protection licence – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd (Applicant)
NSW Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
K Glassborrow, G&B Lawyers (Applicant)
E Bateman & I Krynina, Office of Environment and Heritage (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/33886
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal pursuant to s 287(3)(c) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 against a deemed refusal of an application made on 26 September 2017 to transfer Environment Protection Licence Number 20645 to Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd.

  2. In this matter, at a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  3. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. Upon payment of a financial assurance in the sum of $80,000 by the Applicant to the Respondent, the Respondent will lift Notice to Suspend Licence number 1561582, enclosed and marked Annexure ‘A’.

  2. Upon the Respondent lifting Notice to Suspend Licence number 1561582, the Respondent will transfer Environment Protection Licence number 20645, enclosed and marked Annexure ‘B’, to the Applicant.

  3. Condition E1.2 of Environment Protection Licence number 20645 be varied pursuant to Annexure ‘B’.

  4. No order as to costs.

……………………….

Joanne Gray

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A

Annexure B

Amendments

11 July 2018 - Correction to format of orders on cover sheet.

Details
AGLC
Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd v NSW Environment Protection Authority [2018] NSWLEC 1352
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1352
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Budget Waste Recycling Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) concerning the granting of a waste facility licence. The Federal Court was asked to examine the legality of the EPA's decisions in issuing the licence and the conditions that were attached to it.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the EPA had acted beyond its statutory powers and whether there was any procedural unfairness in the way the decision was made. Budget Waste Recycling contested the EPA's authority to impose certain conditions on the licence, arguing that these conditions were not within the scope of the relevant environmental protection legislation. Additionally, Budget Waste Recycling claimed that the EPA failed to consider some relevant environmental factors and did not provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the issuance of waste facility licences and found that the EPA had indeed overstepped its authority by imposing conditions that were not authorised by the legislation. Furthermore, the court determined that the EPA's failure to consider certain environmental factors and its inadequate reasoning constituted procedural unfairness. As a result, the court quashed the EPA's decisions and remitted the matter back to the EPA for reconsideration.

The court ordered that the decisions of the EPA be quashed and that the matter be remitted back to the EPA for reconsideration in accordance with the court's findings. The court further directed that the EPA consider all relevant environmental factors and provide adequate reasons for its decisions in compliance with the statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [5] below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.