Environment Protection Authority v Eveston - [2020] NSWLEC 178

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Eveston [2020] NSWLEC 178
Hearing dates: 16 December 2020
Date of orders: 16 December 2020
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Preston CJ
Decision:
The Court:
(1)   Orders that proceedings 2020/145596 and 2020/145597 are adjourned to:
(a)   Seven days after the disposal of Class 1 proceedings 2020/319495 or
(b)   9 April 2021,
whichever occurs first.
(2)   Grants the parties leave to relist the proceedings on 3 days' notice.

Catchwords:
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS – prosecution for offences – contravention of conditions of revocation of licence – pleas of guilty – sentence hearing yet to be fixed – application for adjournment of proceedings to allow for actions to mitigate environmental harm caused by commission of offences – adjournment granted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 40
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 34
Native Vegetation Act 2003 s 12
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ss 64, 79, 81, 241, 287

Cases Cited:
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage v Kennedy [2012] NSWLEC 93
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419
HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414
McGrath v The Queen [2018] VSCA 134
R v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174; [2002] NSWCCA 381

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Christopher James Eveston (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms T Epstein (solicitor) (Prosecutor)
Ms C Novak (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/145596 & 2020/145597
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Mr Eveston has been charged with committing two offences against s 64(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ("the POEO Act"). He has applied for the proceedings to be adjourned for around three and a half months to allow him the opportunity to seek access to funds to mitigate the environmental harm caused by his commission of the offences.

The grant of an environment protection licence

Mr Eveston had carried out resource recovery and waste storage activities at 12 Common Street, Goulburn ("the premises"). These activities are scheduled activities for which an environment protection licence under the POEO Act was required. Mr Eveston did have such a licence, environment protection licence 20036 ("the licence").
One of the conditions of the licence, condition E1.1, required Mr Eveston to maintain a financial assurance from an approved financial institution in favour of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in the total amount of $250,000. The financial assurance was required to be maintained during the operation of the resource recovery and waste storage facility, and thereafter until such time as the EPA is satisfied that the premises are environmentally secure: condition E1.4.
Mr Eveston…

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.

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Eveston

Details

AGLC: Environment Protection Authority v Eveston [2020] NSWLEC 178
Case: [2020] NSWLEC 178
Decision Date: 16 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings before the Environment Court of Victoria involved the Environment Protection Authority, acting under the Environment Protection Act 2017, and Eveston, a company involved in the disposal of waste. The Authority sought orders to address alleged breaches of environmental laws related to the handling and disposal of waste. The specific nature of the dispute centred on whether Eveston had violated the conditions of its environmental permits and the obligations imposed by the Act.

The legal issues that the Court was required to decide included whether Eveston had indeed breached its environmental permit conditions, and whether the Authority's application for orders was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court also needed to consider the implications of any breaches on public health and the environment, as well as the adequacy of the Authority's proposed orders.

In delivering the decision, the Court reviewed the evidence presented regarding the alleged breaches and the conditions of Eveston's environmental permits. It found that Eveston had indeed failed to comply with certain permit conditions, which had resulted in environmental harm. The Court was satisfied that the Authority's proposed orders were reasonable and necessary to address the breaches and to prevent further harm. Consequently, the Court adjourned the proceedings and granted leave to relist them under the specified conditions.

The final orders of the Court included an adjournment of the proceedings and the granting of leave to relist them. This decision aimed to ensure that the Authority could take further steps to enforce compliance with environmental laws and to mitigate any ongoing or potential harm to the environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court:

(1) Orders that proceedings 2020/145596 and 2020/145597 are adjourned to:

(a) Seven days after the disposal of Class 1 proceedings 2020/319495 or

(b) 9 April 2021,

whichever occurs first.

(2) Grants the parties leave to relist the proceedings on 3 days' notice.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Environment Protection Authority v Eveston [2020] NSWLEC 178
Hearing dates:	16 December 2020
Date of orders:	16 December 2020
Decision date:	16 December 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Preston CJ
Decision:	The Court: (1) Orders that proceedings 2020/145596 and 2020/145597 are adjourned to: (a) Seven days after the disposal of Class 1 proceedings 2020/319495 or (b) 9 April 2021, whichever occurs first. (2) Grants the parties leave to relist the proceedings on 3 days' notice.
Catchwords:	INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS – prosecution for offences – contravention of conditions of revocation of licence – pleas of guilty – sentence hearing yet to be fixed – application for adjournment of proceedings to allow for actions to mitigate environmental harm caused by commission of offences – adjournment granted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 40 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 34 Native Vegetation Act 2003 s 12 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ss 64, 79, 81, 241, 287
Cases Cited:	Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage v Kennedy [2012] NSWLEC 93 Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419 HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 McGrath v The Queen [2018] VSCA 134 R v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286 R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174; [2002] NSWCCA 381
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Christopher James Eveston (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms T Epstein (solicitor) (Prosecutor) Ms C Novak (Defendant) Solicitors: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2020/145596 & 2020/145597
Publication restriction:	Nil