Legal Research
Cases
Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The Minister for Environment [No 2]

Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The Minister for Environment [No 2]

Link copied

Case Copied 12 May 2017 77 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD -v- THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT [No 2] [2017] WASCA 90

CORAM: BUSS P
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 2 - 3 NOVEMBER 2016 & ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 12 MAY 2017

FILE NO/S: CACV 16 of 2016

BETWEEN: ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT
Respondent

FILE NO/S :CACV 17 of 2016

BETWEEN :ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First Respondent
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT REGULATION
Second Respondent
THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT
Third Respondent

FILE NO/S :CACV 18 of 2016

BETWEEN :ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First Respondent
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT REGULATION
Second Respondent
THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No  :  CACV 16 of 2016
Jurisdiction                  :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :BEECH J
Citation  :ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2016] WASC 62
File No  :CIV 2385 of 2013
For File No  :  CACV 17 of 2016
Jurisdiction                  :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :BEECH J
Citation  :ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2016] WASC 62
File No  :CIV 2416 of 2014
For File No  :  CACV 18 of 2016
Jurisdiction                  :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :BEECH J
Citation  :ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY LTD -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 4] [2016] WASC 62
File No  :CIV 1364 of 2009

Catchwords:

Local government and environment - 'Waste' - Material deposited and compacted in voids at premises - Waste management - Statutory construction - Meaning of 'waste' - Meaning of 'waste accepted for burial' - Meaning of 'waste disposed of to landfill'

Constitutional law - Duties of excise - Whether levy imposed on waste disposed of to landfill is a duty of excise

Legislation:

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 (WA)
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WA)
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act 2007 (WA)
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Regulations 2008 (WA)
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Regulations 2008 (WA)

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

CACV 16 of 2016

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr M McCusker QC & Mr S Penglis
Respondent: Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms J Shaw

Solicitors:

Appellant: Fletcher Law
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

CACV 17 of 2016

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr M McCusker QC & Mr S Penglis
First Respondent               :     Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms J Shaw
Second Respondent           :     Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms J Shaw
Third Respondent              :     Mr G R Donaldson SC & Ms J Shaw

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Fletcher Law
First Respondent               :     State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The Minister for Environment [No... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] WASCA 90
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd and the Minister for Environment was heard by the High Court of Australia. Eclipse, a waste management company, challenged the constitutional validity of a levy imposed on waste disposed of to landfill under the Environment Protection Act. The company argued that the levy constituted an invalid duty of excise because it was levied on goods on their removal from the State. The Minister for Environment maintained that the levy was a valid tax, not a duty of excise, and was within the Commonwealth's taxation power under section 51(ii) of the Constitution.

The court was required to determine the meaning of the terms 'waste', 'waste accepted for burial', and 'waste disposed of to landfill' under the Environment Protection Act. It was also required to decide whether the levy imposed on waste disposed of to landfill constituted a duty of excise, and therefore was invalid under section 90 of the Constitution. The court needed to consider the nature of the levy and its impact on interstate trade and commerce, as well as the broader context of environmental regulation and waste management.

The court held that the levy imposed on waste disposed of to landfill was a duty of excise, and therefore invalid under section 90 of the Constitution. The court found that the levy was a tax on the removal of waste from the State, which was an incident of the sale of the waste. The court also held that the terms 'waste', 'waste accepted for burial', and 'waste disposed of to landfill' were not ambiguous, and that the levy was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's taxation power. The court rejected Eclipse's argument that the levy constituted an invalid duty of excise, and held that the levy was a valid tax under section 51(ii) of the Constitution.

The court ordered that the levy imposed on waste disposed of to landfill was invalid, and that Eclipse was entitled to a refund of the levy paid. The court also held that the terms 'waste', 'waste accepted for burial', and 'waste disposed of to landfill' were not ambiguous, and that the levy was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's taxation power. The decision has significant implications for the regulation of waste management and the imposition of taxes on waste disposal activities in Australia.

Orders