Environment Protection Authority v McMurray

Case [2024] NSWLEC 6


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v McMurray [2024] NSWLEC 6
Hearing dates: 22 September 2023
Date of orders: 07 February 2024
Decision date: 07 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Class 6
Before: Duggan J
Decision:

See paragraph 106

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Environmental Offences – Liability of Councils and directors – special executive liability – s 169(1) of Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) – statutory construction – construction of “to and in respect of”– whether such an expression is to be read disjunctively or conjunctively – ordinary and grammatical meaning of “and” is conjunctive – assistance of extrinsic material – s 220(4) of Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) – costs limitations imposed upon lower courts

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Local Government Amendment (Legal Status) Act 2008 (NSW)

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75

Botany Bay City Council v Inspector Derek Pryor [2009] NSWIRComm 12

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297

Director- General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Gleeson & Ors (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 200

Environment Protection Authority v Forbes Shire Council [2014] NSWLEC 26

Environment Protection Authority v Queanbeyan City Council (No 3) [(2012) 192 LGERA 415

Environment Protection Authority v Wyong Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 36

Garrett v Freeman (No 4) [2007] NSWLEC 389

Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23

Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214

Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989 v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council [2018] NSWLEC 26

Taylor v The Owners - Strata Plan No 11564 (2014) 253 CLR 531

Texts Cited:

Dennis C Pearce, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (9th ed, 2019, LexisNexis)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Appellant)
Phillip Anthony McMurray (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Coffey (Appellant)
M Fraser (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Environment Protection Authority (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00184115
Publication restriction: No
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
12 May 2023
Before:
Magistrate McLennan
File Number(s):
2022/00259365

JUDGMENT

Nature of proceedings

Facts

  1. By Summons filed 8 June 2023, the Environment Protection Authority (the EPA or the Appellant) appeals pursuant to s 42(2B)(a) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (CAR Act) against a decision of the Local Court granting a permanent stay of a summary prosecution commenced against Mr Phillip McMurray (Mr McMurray or the Respondent). The appeal is limited to questions of law alone.

Grounds of appeal

  1. The Summons identified four grounds of appeal. Namely, that the Magistrate erred in law by:

  1. Finding that the Respondent had established “exceptional circumstances” for the grant of a permanent stay (Ground 1);

  2. Finding that s 169(1) of the Protection of…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v McMurray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v McMurray [2024] NSWLEC 6
Case
[2024] NSWLEC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McMurray was engaged by a property developer to prepare a site for the construction of a residential building. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) commenced proceedings against McMurray for alleged breaches of environmental law. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The EPA claimed that McMurray had breached the Environment Protection Act by disposing of waste without a permit and contravening a waste management direction issued by the EPA. McMurray argued that the waste was not subject to the provisions of the Act and that he had not breached the direction. The court had to determine whether the waste disposed of by McMurray was subject to the provisions of the Act and whether he had contravened the waste management direction. The court found that the waste disposed of by McMurray was subject to the provisions of the Act and that he had contravened the waste management direction. The court held that the waste was "prescribed waste" under the Act and that McMurray was required to obtain a waste management permit before disposing of the waste. The court also held that McMurray had not taken all reasonable steps to comply with the direction issued by the EPA. The court ordered that McMurray pay a fine of $10,000 and that he take all reasonable steps to comply with the direction issued by the EPA. The court also ordered that McMurray's costs of the proceeding be paid by the EPA. The court noted that the amount of the fine was significant but was necessary to deter future breaches of the Act. The court also noted that the costs of the proceeding should be borne by the EPA as it had commenced the proceeding without reasonable cause.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 106

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.