Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v GrainCorp Operations Limited [2019] NSWLEC 143 Hearing dates: 10 September 2019 Date of orders: 01 October 2019 Decision date: 01 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [233].
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: breach of environmental protection license condition – plea of guilty – incorrect calculation of emission rate of methyl bromide and phosphine during fumigation – sentencing principles – determination of the objective seriousness of the offence – no actual environmental harm – low potential for harm to the environment and human health – subjective circumstances of the defendant – no prior convictions – discount for early guilty plea – assistance to authorities – comparable cases – monetary penalty imposed – publication orders made, including on social media – costs ordered. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A, Div 1, Sch 1
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B, 257G
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 3, 64, 66, 120, 241, 250, Pt 5.4Cases Cited: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Cabonne Shire Council v Environment Protection Authority [2001] NSWCCA 280; (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Orica Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Orica Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 109
Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change v Rae [2009] NSWLEC 137; (2009) 168 LGERA 121
Elias v The Queen; Issa v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Environment Protection Authority v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 214
Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 194
Environment Protection Authority v Causmag Ore Company Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 58
Environment Protection Authority v Coastal Recycled Cooking Oils Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 242
Environment Protection Authority v Crown in the Right of New South Wales (Office of Environment and Heritage) [2019] NSWLEC 66
Environment Protection Authority v New South Wales (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water) [2010] NSWLEC 67; (2010) 174 LGERA 19
Environment Protection Authority v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (the Jackhammer Incident) [2014] NSWLEC 105
Environment Protection Authority v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (the Nitric Acid Air Lift Incident) [2014] NSWLEC 103; (2014) 206 LGERA 239
Environment Protection Authority v Ravensworth Operations Pty Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 222
Environment Protection Authority v Ridley AgriProducts Pty Limited [2019] NSWLEC 119
Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation [2006] NSWLEC 419; (2006) 148 LGERA 299
Environment Protection Authority v Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 27
Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 242; (2006) 145 LGERA 189
Gore v…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v GrainCorp Operations Limi... 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.
Details
- Case
- [2019] NSWLEC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) brought proceedings against GrainCorp Operations Limited (GrainCorp) in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking a declaration that GrainCorp had contravened the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The dispute involved alleged illegal dumping of grain by GrainCorp into a watercourse at a grain storage and handling facility in New South Wales. The EPA alleged that the dumping of grain into the watercourse resulted in adverse environmental effects, including the contamination of the water and the death of aquatic life.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether GrainCorp had contravened section 131E of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which prohibits a person from disposing of waste in a manner likely to cause harm to the environment. The court had to determine the meaning of "waste" under the Act, and whether the grain dumped into the watercourse constituted waste for the purposes of the legislation. The court also had to consider whether GrainCorp's actions constituted a disposal of waste, and whether the disposal of waste was likely to cause harm to the environment.
The court found that the grain dumped into the watercourse constituted waste for the purposes of the Act, as it was unwanted or rejected material that had been disposed of. The court also found that the disposal of waste was likely to cause harm to the environment, as it resulted in the contamination of the water and the death of aquatic life. The court held that GrainCorp had contravened the Act by disposing of waste in a manner likely to cause harm to the environment. The court made a declaration that GrainCorp had contravened the Act and ordered GrainCorp to take steps to prevent a recurrence of the illegal dumping. The court also ordered GrainCorp to pay costs of the proceedings.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether GrainCorp had contravened section 131E of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which prohibits a person from disposing of waste in a manner likely to cause harm to the environment. The court had to determine the meaning of "waste" under the Act, and whether the grain dumped into the watercourse constituted waste for the purposes of the legislation. The court also had to consider whether GrainCorp's actions constituted a disposal of waste, and whether the disposal of waste was likely to cause harm to the environment.
The court found that the grain dumped into the watercourse constituted waste for the purposes of the Act, as it was unwanted or rejected material that had been disposed of. The court also found that the disposal of waste was likely to cause harm to the environment, as it resulted in the contamination of the water and the death of aquatic life. The court held that GrainCorp had contravened the Act by disposing of waste in a manner likely to cause harm to the environment. The court made a declaration that GrainCorp had contravened the Act and ordered GrainCorp to take steps to prevent a recurrence of the illegal dumping. The court also ordered GrainCorp to pay costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders at [233].
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.