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
ApplicantAND: MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089)
First RespondentGREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349)
Second RespondentBO LIU
Third RespondentYONGXIN ZHU
Fourth RespondentBARRY 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
ApplicantAND: MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089)
First RespondentGREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349)
Second RespondentBO LIU
Third RespondentYONGXIN ZHU
Fourth RespondentBARRY ELI KIBBLEWHITE
Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:
FOSTER J
DATE:
11 MARCH 2013
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 8 March 2013, I published Reasons for Judgment in this matter (Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205).
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 210
- Case
- [2013] FCA 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.