Environment Protection Authority v Hanson Precast Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Hanson Precast Pty Limited [2008] NSWLEC 285
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR:
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT:
Hanson Precast Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER(S): 50030 of 2008
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- plea of guilty to oil pollution of waters contrary to s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 - appropriate sentence.
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22, 23
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), ss 3, 120, 123, 241, 248
CASES CITED: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Cabonne Shire Council v Environment Protection Authority (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Environment Protection Authority v Hochtief AG and Thiess Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 177
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corp (2006) 148 LGERA 299
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Carroll [2008] NSWCCA 218
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Slattery (1996) 90 A Crim R 519
R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458
DATES OF HEARING: 25 September 2008
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 25 September 2008
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR:
Ms P Lenehan, solicitor
SOLICITORS:
Department of Environment and Climate Change

DEFENDANT:
Mr N Hemmings QC
SOLICITORS
Allens Arthur Robinson

JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      BISCOE J

      25 September 2008

      50030 of 2008

      ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY v HANSON PRECAST PTY LIMITED

      EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a criminal oil pollution case. The defendant, Hanson Precast Pty Limited, has pleaded guilty to a charge of polluting waters contrary to s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) on or about 19 April 2007 at or near Mulgrave in New South Wales. The defendant is now before the Court for sentence.

2 The defendant has admitted that between 200 and 300 litres of heat transfer oil escaped from its premises via the stormwater drainage system. The spill affected about 200 metres of an unnamed watercourse. The offence occurred when the defendant, as occupier of the premises from which the pollutant was released, caused the pollutant to pass through the premises’ stormwater drainage system and discharge into those waters.

Background

3 The agreed facts are set out at [4] – [33] below.

4 Hanson owns and operates a pre-stressed concrete batching plant business at 63 Railway Avenue North, Mulgrave. Hanson owns and controls a heat transfer system on the premises used in curing the pre-stressed concrete on casting beds. The premises have four casting beds under which heat transfer oil circulates in pipes.

Licensed premises

5 Hanson is the holder of Environment Protection Licence No. 542 to operate a concrete batching plant at the premises. EPL No. 542 is…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Hanson Precast Pty 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
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
[2008] NSWLEC 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Environment Protection Authority, the prosecutor, brought an action against Hanson Precast Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Local Court of New South Wales. The case arose from a complaint regarding the defendant's non-compliance with environmental regulations, specifically in relation to the disposal of construction waste. The alleged offence was committed under section 136 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, which mandates that waste must be disposed of in a manner that does not harm the environment. The defendant was charged with one count of contravening this provision.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the defendant had indeed breached the statutory requirement by improperly disposing of construction waste. This involved examining the evidence presented by both parties regarding the defendant's waste management practices and whether these practices complied with the relevant environmental legislation. The court also had to consider the severity of the breach and the appropriate penalty to impose, given the defendant's previous history and the potential environmental impact.

The court found that the evidence clearly demonstrated the defendant's non-compliance with the environmental regulations. The defendant had failed to secure the necessary permits for waste disposal and had deposited construction waste in a manner that posed a risk to the environment. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect public health and the environment. Consequently, the court convicted the defendant as charged, imposing a fine of $50,000, along with orders to pay the prosecutor's legal and investigation costs. The court's decision underscored the need for strict enforcement of environmental regulations and the potential consequences for non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. The defendant is fined the sum of $50,000.

3. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s legal costs of the prosecution agreed in the sum of $17,680.

4. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s investigation costs under s 248 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, agreed in the sum of $4,320.

5. The exhibits may be returned.

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.