Dial-A-Dump (EC) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority

Case [2022] NSWLEC 1131


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dial-A-Dump (EC) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2022] NSWLEC 1131
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference held on 28 January 2022 and 17 February 2022
Date of orders: 30 March 2022
Decision date: 30 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Bish C
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) Environment Protection Licence No. 13426 is varied as set out in Annexure A and permitted according to conditions described in Annexure B.

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LICENCE – additional conditions to address odour – conciliation conference – agreement between the parties – orders

Legislation Cited:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 34

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 58, 287, 292

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Dial-A-Dump (EC) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
P Larkin SC (Applicant)
H El-Hage (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Ashurst (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/279179
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against notice number 1612304 (the notice) issued by the Environment Protection Authority (hereafter the EPA) to add conditions L3.7 and O5.5 to Environment Protection Licence 13426 (the EPL) for landfill operations on Lot 1 DP 1145808 and Lot 2 DP 1247691, also known as 1 Kangaroo Avenue, Eastern Creek (hereafter the site).

  2. The EPA issued the notice to vary the conditions of the EPL in response to odour complaints.

  3. This Class 1 appeal is made pursuant to s 287 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act).

  4. The Court agreed to the parties’ request for a conciliation conference, pursuant to s 34(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (LEC Act), which was conducted by MS Teams and without a site view.

  5. Based on the amended EPL (conditions), the parties reached agreement as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that would be acceptable to the parties. The restriction on the nominated odour producing waste material is agreed by the parties, as described in condition L3.7. The parties agreed to delete proposed condition O5.5.

  6. The parties agree that the contentions of the EPA have been considered and are resolved by the agreed amendments to the conditions attached to the EPL, as described in Annexure A. The parties agree that the terms and conditions of the amended EPL, as described in Annexure B are capable of being complied with in the operation of the landfill.

  7. Pursuant to s 34(3) of the LEC Act, I must dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision, if it is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions. The parties' decision involves the Court exercising its function under s 292 of the POEO Act, to amend the EPL, as described in Annexure ‘A’, and according to the terms and conditions in Annexure B.

  8. The parties identified the jurisdictional prerequisites of relevance in these proceedings, as being consistent with the POEO Act and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The amendments to the EPL have been considered in the context of the reasonable needs of the existing operator, the function of the landfill, protection of sensitive receptors and relevant legislative provisions.

  9. As explained to the Court, the parties agree that all jurisdictional requirements are resolved, and that the Court should not be constrained to amend the EPL, as agreed. The merit assessment requirements to amend the conditions of the EPL have been undertaken by the EPA.

  10. Based on the evidence before me, as provided by the parties in the conciliation, I am satisfied that there are no jurisdictional impediments to the amendment to the conditions of Environment Protection Licence 13426, pursuant to s 58(2) of the POEO Act.

  11. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.

  12. The Court orders that:

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Environment Protection Licence No. 13426 is varied as set out in Annexure A and permitted according to conditions described in Annexure B.

…………………………

Sarah Bish

Commissioner of the Court

Annexure A (8996, pdf)

Annexure B (230087, pdf)

**********

Amendments

08 April 2022 - Amended typographical errors in 'Representation' section.

Details
AGLC
Dial-A-Dump (EC) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2022] NSWLEC 1131
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 1131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dial-A-Dump (EC) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Dial-A-Dump, an applicant for a waste management facility licence, sought judicial review of a decision by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to deny their application. The central issue was whether the EPA's decision was legally sound, particularly in terms of the statutory criteria for granting such a licence and the process followed in reaching its determination.

The court had to consider whether the EPA's decision was unreasonable and whether there were any procedural errors that could invalidate the denial. The applicant argued that the EPA failed to properly consider relevant statutory criteria and did not follow due process. The EPA, on the other hand, contended that the decision was based on comprehensive evidence and adhered to the required legal standards.

In its judgment, the court found that the EPA's decision was indeed unreasonable and that the statutory criteria were not properly applied. The court further determined that there were procedural flaws in how the decision was reached, including inadequate consideration of certain evidence and failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision. Consequently, the court ruled that the appeal was upheld, and the licence should be varied with specific conditions to ensure compliance with legal standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is upheld.

(2) Environment Protection Licence No. 13426 is varied as set out in Annexure A and permitted according to conditions described in Annexure B.

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.