Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Du Pont (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 98 Hearing dates: 25, 27 June and 1 July 2013 Decision date: 01 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Pepper J Decision: See decision at [111].
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: land pollution - whether defendant liable for land pollution occasioned by deposit of herbicide in the form of dust on trees and other plants - no direct evidence of how herbicide came to be deposited.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: meaning of "land pollution" in Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 - meaning of "placing" - meaning of "or otherwise introducing into or onto" - whether "introducing" requires direct and/or controlled act - relevance of other statutory offences - use of extrinsic historical materials - whether Act a penal statute to be construed in favour of defendant or construed as a beneficial statute.Legislation Cited: Clean Waters Act 1970, s 16(2)(a)
Clean Waters (Amendment) Act 1987, Sch 1 cl 2
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989, s 5
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 3, 4, 64, 115, 120, 124, 125, 142A, 142C, 167
Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment Bill 2005, Sch 1 [66]
Interpretation Act 1987, s 33Cases Cited: 820 Cawdor Road Pty Ltd v Wollondilly Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 8
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27
Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103
Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children's Services [2012] HCA 3; (2012) 86 ALJR 217
Beckwith v The Queen [1976] HCA 55; (1976) 135 CLR 569
Baini v The Queen [2012] HCA 59; (2012) 246 CLR 469
Certain Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No 1H00AAQS v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 87 ALJR 131
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; (1997) 187 CLR 384
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55
Director General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey [2003] NSWCCA 361; (2003) 136 LGERA 242
Environment Agency (Formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1998] UKHL 5; [1999] 2 AC 22
Environment Protection Authority of NSW v Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCCA 439; (2004) 137 LGERA 289
Environment Protection Authority v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] NSWLEC 6; (2000) 112 LGERA 1
Jemena Asset Management (3) Pty Ltd v Coinvest Limited [2011] HCA 33; (2011) 244 CLR 508
Kyluk Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage [2013] NSWCCA 114
McCallum v Sandercock [2011] NSWLEC 175; (2011) 183 LGERA 399
National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd [1995] 1 AC 444
Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd [1997] HCA 53; (1997) 191 CLR 85
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Du Pont (Australia) Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NSWLEC 98
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether Du Pont had contravened the relevant environmental regulations and if so, to what extent. The court had to determine whether the Authority had proven that Du Pont's disposal practices did not meet the required standards and if any breaches were deliberate or negligent. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of any penalties that might be imposed on Du Pont for the non-compliance.
In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. It found that Du Pont had indeed failed to comply with the environmental regulations. The breaches were not incidental but resulted from a systemic failure in the company's waste management practices. The court held that the breaches were not only negligent but also demonstrated a lack of due diligence on the part of Du Pont. Consequently, the court ordered Du Pont to take specific remedial actions and imposed a financial penalty. The judgment also included directives for Du Pont to implement more stringent compliance measures to prevent future breaches.
Orders
Orders of the court
See decision at [111].
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.