Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2013] FCA 210


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 210

Citation: Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 210
Parties: CLEAN ENERGY REGULATOR v MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089), GREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349), BO LIU, YONGXIN ZHU and BARRY ELI KIBBLEWHITE
File number: ACD 29 of 2012
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 11 March 2013
Cases cited: Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205 related
Date of hearing: 5 November 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T Begbie
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitor for the First and Third Respondents: The Third Respondent appeared in person on his own behalf and on behalf of the First Respondent
Solicitor for the Second and Fourth Respondents: The Second and Fourth Respondents submitted
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: The Fifth Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 29 of 2012

BETWEEN:

CLEAN ENERGY REGULATOR
Applicant

AND:

MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089)
First Respondent

GREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349)
Second Respondent

BO LIU
Third Respondent

YONGXIN ZHU
Fourth Respondent

BARRY ELI KIBBLEWHITE
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

FOSTER J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 MARCH 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Reasons for Judgment published on 8 March 2013 (Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205) be amended by deleting [129] thereof and substituting therefor [129] as indicated in the attached Reasons for Judgment.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 29 of 2012

BETWEEN:

CLEAN ENERGY REGULATOR
Applicant

AND:

MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089)
First Respondent

GREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349)
Second Respondent

BO LIU
Third Respondent

YONGXIN ZHU
Fourth Respondent

BARRY ELI KIBBLEWHITE
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

FOSTER J

DATE:

11 MARCH 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 8 March 2013, I published Reasons for Judgment in this matter (Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205).

  2. I have subsequently realised that [129] of those Reasons contains a number of arithmetical errors in the calculated ranges of penalties referred to in that paragraph.  Notwithstanding those arithmetical errors, I wish to make clear that I had intended to impose a penalty of $70,000 on MT Solar Pty Ltd.  That was the penalty which, in fact, I imposed upon MT Solar Pty Ltd on 8 March 2013. 

  3. In order for my Reasons for Judgment of 8 March 2013 to be correctly understood, the following paragraph should be substituted for [129] in those Reasons:

    129.When those starting point penalties are applied and totalled, the range of starting point penalties is $151,250–$206,250.  To that range, I propose to apply a 40% discount for co-operation thereby reducing the range to $90,750–$123,750.  I propose also to apply a further 20% discount to take account of the totality principle.  When that discount is applied, the proposed range of penalty is $72,600–$99,000.  I think that that range throws up a penalty which is still too high. I think that a penalty just under the lower end of the range is justified.  In all the circumstances, I will impose a penalty of $70,000 upon MT Solar.

  4. I propose to amend my Reasons for Judgment published on 8 March 2013 accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster.

Associate:

Dated:       11 March 2013  

Details
AGLC
Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 210
Case
[2013] FCA 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2), the Clean Energy Regulator sought to amend penalties imposed on MT Solar and its associated entities under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Credit Units) Act 2011. The dispute arose from allegations of improper conduct in relation to carbon credits. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Foster J delivering the judgment on 11 March 2013.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the penalties imposed on MT Solar and its associated entities were appropriate in light of the arithmetical errors identified in the earlier judgment. The court needed to determine whether the penalties imposed were reflective of the intended severity, despite the errors, and whether any amendments were necessary to ensure the penalties accurately reflected the court's original intentions.

Foster J acknowledged the arithmetical errors in the previous judgment but affirmed the intent behind the penalties imposed. The court noted that despite the errors, the penalty of $70,000 on MT Solar was correctly imposed and intended. The court subsequently amended the reasons for judgment to reflect the correct calculations and to ensure clarity in the final penalties. The court applied a 40% discount for cooperation and a further 20% discount for the totality principle, resulting in a final penalty range of $72,600–$99,000. However, the court determined that a penalty just under the lower end of this range was justified, settling on $70,000 for MT Solar.

The court's decision clarified the penalties and ensured that the final orders accurately reflected the court's original intentions, correcting the arithmetical errors while maintaining the intended severity of the penalties. The amendments to the reasons for judgment provided clarity and ensured that the penalties imposed were correctly understood and recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.