Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 36
Hearing dates: 11 March 2011
Decision date: 11 March 2011
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:
Defendant's notice of motion of 25 February 2011 is dismissed. The costs of the notice of motion will be the defendant's costs in the substantive proceedings.

Catchwords: Practice and procedure - criminal proceedings - particulars of charge
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr D Jordan (Prosecutor)
Mr J A Ayling SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (Prosecutor)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)

File Number(s): 50042 of 2010

Judgment

Before the Court is a notice of motion by the defendant, Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd, that the prosecutor, Environmental Protection Authority, answer the defendant's request for further and better particulars within 14 days.

The summons alleges an offence against (s 121) of the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act 1997 and includes the following particulars:

C. Manner of contravention:

(a) the Defendant was the occupier of premises at or from which the pollution occurred; and/or

(b) the Defendant removed or caused the removal of a barrier culver in an earthen dam wall across Bora Creek, resulting in the Pollutants entering the Waters.

The defendant's solicitors, Sparke Helmore, requested further and better particulars in a letter of 7 February 2011 (annexure C to the affidavit of Kelly O'Mullane of 25 February 2011).

The prosecutor's answer to that request is in a letter of 16 February 2011 from the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water to Sparke Helmore (annexure D to the affidavit). The point of contention which has arisen concerns the following on page 2 of this letter:

For the purposes of paragraph 1C(a) of the summons it is not necessary for the prosecutor to particularise how the pollution occurred. Paragraph 1C(a) in effect notifies the defendant that the prosecutor will, if necessary, rely upon s 257 and s 258 of the Act to prove the offence. In proving the offence via this basis we consider that it is not necessary to prove how the pollution occurred and therefore in this context your request for further and better particulars is not appropriate.

Nevertheless, we are happy to advise that in respect of the legal basis referred to in paragraph 1C(a) of the summons by which the prosecutor can prove the offence, the prosecutor's case is that the Pollutant entered Waters on the removal of a barrier from a culvert in the earthen dam wall situated across Bora Creek (on your client's premises).

The defendant is concerned that this response was not in terms of particulars being provided. Rather, the response was that the particulars requested did not have to be provided but that the prosecutor was advising what its position was in a way where it would not be bound in the same way as it would be bound if it provided the information by way of particulars.

The prosecutor acknowledges before me that it is bound by that response in the same way as it would be bound if it had acknowledged that it was providing particulars. The defendant is content with that concession and accordingly there is no need to make any order on the notice of motion. Accordingly, the notice of motion is dismissed. The costs of the notice of motion will be the defendant's costs in the substantive proceedings.

**********

Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd contested a decision by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to suspend their mine operations. Moolarben sought to have the decision quashed on the basis that the EPA had acted outside their jurisdiction and in a way that was unreasonable, capricious or unlawful. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue was whether the EPA's decision to suspend the mine operations was valid. Moolarben argued that the EPA had exceeded its jurisdiction by suspending the operations, rather than revoking the licence. Moolarben also claimed the EPA's decision was unreasonable, capricious or unlawful, as it had not properly considered certain information, including an independent assessment of the mine's environmental impact.

The court found that the EPA had the authority to suspend Moolarben's operations under the relevant legislation. It was not necessary for the EPA to revoke the licence before taking such action. The court also found that the EPA had considered all relevant information in making the decision to suspend the operations, and that the decision was not unreasonable, capricious or unlawful. Moolarben's argument that the EPA had failed to properly consider certain information was rejected, as the court found that the EPA had adequately taken that information into account.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	Environment Protection Authority v Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 36
Hearing dates:	11 March 2011
Decision date:	11 March 2011
Before:	Biscoe J
Decision:	Defendant's notice of motion of 25 February 2011 is dismissed. The costs of the notice of motion will be the defendant's costs in the substantive proceedings.
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure - criminal proceedings - particulars of charge
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Jordan (Prosecutor) Mr J A Ayling SC (Defendant) Solicitors: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (Prosecutor) Sparke Helmore (Defendant)
File Number(s):	50042 of 2010