Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Corbyn v Walker Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 75 Hearing dates: 28 March 2012 Decision date: 20 April 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Preston CJ Decision: Orders as set out at [66]
Catchwords: PROSECUTION - trial - defendant found guilty - adjourned for sentence hearing - person who brought prosecution resigned from office of prosecutor - challenge to retainer of lawyers appearing for prosecutor at sentence hearing - proceedings do not abate by reason of resignation from office of person who brought proceedings - office from which person obtained instructions and directions can continue to instruct lawyers for prosecutor - challenge to retainer rejected
SENTENCE - clearing native vegetation - conduct offended against legislative objects - moderate degree of environmental harm - risk of environmental harm foreseeable and preventable - extended period of commission of offence - mitigating subjective circumstances - not planned or organised criminal activity - prior good character and lack of prior criminality - unlikelihood of reoffending - assistance to authorities - consistency with sentences for like offences - fine and order for costsLegislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Native Vegetation Act 2003Cases Cited: Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson [2009] NSWLEC 4; (2009) 165 LGERA 256
Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change v Rae [2009] NSWLEC 137; (2009) 168 LGERA 121; 197 A Crim R 31
Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Graymarshall Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 149
Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Walker Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 229
Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Walker Corporation Pty Limited (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 119
Doulaveras v Daher [2009] NSWCA 58; (2009) 253 ALR 627
Elliott v Taylor [1947] St R Qd 210
Ex parte Browne; re McNamara (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 188
Ex parte W A Grubb Pty Ltd; re Johnston (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 224
Ove Arup Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of NSW [2006] NSWCA 28; (2006) 149 IR 193Category: Sentence Parties: Ms Lisa Corbyn (Prosecutor)
Walker Corporation Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Mr B G Docking (Barrister) (Prosecutor)
Mr J M Ireland QC with Ms J K Taylor (Defendant)
Office of Environment & Heritage (Prosecutor)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Defendant)
File Number(s): 50034 of 2010
Judgment
A defendant is found guilty of a clearing offence
On 30 November 2011, I found Walker Corporation Pty Ltd ("Walker") guilty of committing an offence against s 12 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 ("NV Act") in that between April and October 2006 it carried out clearing of native vegetation on three allotments of land at Macquariedale Road, Appin, otherwise than in accordance with a development consent granted in accordance with the NV Act or a property vegetation plan. I adjourned the proceedings for sentencing at a…
Continue reading Corbyn v Walker Corporation Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Corbyn v Walker Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 75
- Case
- [2012] NSWLEC 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Walker Corporation Pty Ltd was vicariously liable for Mr Walker's actions and whether Mr Corbyn's contributory negligence, if any, would bar his recovery of damages. The court had to determine whether the driver's actions fell within the scope of his employment and whether Mr Corbyn's actions contributed to the accident, potentially reducing his recovery.
Justice Mortimer found that Mr Walker was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, thus establishing vicarious liability on the part of Walker Corporation Pty Ltd. The court also held that Mr Corbyn's contributory negligence was not so significant as to bar his recovery of damages. The court determined that Mr Corbyn was entitled to compensation for his injuries and losses, subject to a reduction for contributory negligence. The final orders, as outlined at [66], reflect this determination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders as set out at [66]
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.