Environment Protection Authority v Coe Drilling Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 59 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Coe Drilling Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWLEC 719
Hearing dates:05/12/2005
Decision date: 05 December 2005
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Preston CJ
Decision:

(1) The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.
(2) The defendant is fined the sum of $18,000.
(3) The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s legal and investigation costs in these proceedings in the agreed sum of $20,000, such costs to be paid within three months of today.

Catchwords: Prosecution :- Plea of guilty - pollution of waters - application for unconditional discharge of defendant without conviction - offence not trivial either in nature or circumstances of case - contractual and commercial pressures not extenuating circumstance - obligation on contractor to comply with law irrespective of principal's conduct - foreseeable risk of harm - practical measures to avoid risk - environmental harm material but short term - financial capacity of corporate defendant to pay fine.
Legislation Cited: Clean Waters Act 1970 s.16 (1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s.3A, s.10(1), s.10(3), s.10(3)(c), s.21A(2)(g), s.21A(2)(k), s.21A(3)(a), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(i), s.22, s.23
Fines Act 1996 s.6
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
s.3(a), s.3(d), s.3(e), s.20, s.20(1), s.120, s.120(1),
s.241(1)(a), s.241(1)(b), s.241(1)(c), s.241(1)(d), s.241(1)(e), s.250(1), s.250(1)(a), s.250(1)(c)
Cases Cited: Axer Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357;
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Environment Protection Authority v Capdate Pty Ltd (1993) 78 LGERA 349;
Environment Protection Authority v Douglass (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 94;
Environment Protection Authority v Emerald Peat Pty Ltd (in Liq) [1999] NSWLEC 147;
Environment Protection Authority v Le Dome Pty Limited (2002) 125 LGERA 121;
Filipowski v Cadem Shipping Pty Ltd [2005] NSWLEC 552;
Filipowski v Frey [2005] NSWLEC 661;
Hoare v R (1989) 167 CLR 348;
Inkson v R (1996) 88 A Crim R 334;
Mosman Municipal Council v Menai Excavations Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 132;
Neal v R (1999) 149 CLR 305;
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220;
R v H (1980) 38 A Crim R 53;
R v Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391;
R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83;
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594;
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300;
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267;
Thorneloe v Filipowski (2001) 52 NSWLR 60;
116 LGERA 56;
Veen v R (No.1) (1979) 143 CLR 458;
Veen v R (No.2)(1988) 164 CLR 465;
Webb v Cheung [2002] NSWLEC 135
Category:Sentence
Parties:

PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority

  DEFENDANT
Coe Drilling Australia Pty Limited
Representation:

PROSECUTOR
Mr T Howard
SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority 

  DEFENDANT
Mr I Hemmings
SOLICITORS
Colin Biggers & Paisley
File Number(s):50010 of 2005

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: 

  1. The defendant, Coe Drilling Australia Pty Limited (“Coe Drilling”), has pleaded guilty to an offence against…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Coe Drilling Australia Pt... 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
[2005] NSWLEC 719
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Environment Protection Authority v Coe Drilling Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant was charged with contravening the Environment Protection Act by failing to obtain an authorisation from the Authority in relation to the disposal of waste in the form of cuttings. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that it had reasonably believed that the waste disposal did not require authorisation, and it had acted in good faith.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had contravened the Act by failing to obtain authorisation for the disposal of waste. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the defendant had acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that authorisation was not required. The court also had to consider the appropriate penalty for the offence.

The court found that the defendant had contravened the Act by failing to obtain authorisation for the disposal of waste. The court held that the defendant had not acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that authorisation was not required. The court found that the defendant had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that it complied with the Act. The court imposed a fine of $18,000 and ordered the defendant to pay the prosecutor’s costs in the agreed sum of $20,000 within three months of the date of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.

(2) The defendant is fined the sum of $18,000.

(3) The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s legal and investigation costs in these proceedings in the agreed sum of $20,000, such costs to be paid within three months of today.

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.