Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger

Case [2022] NSWLEC 143


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2022] NSWLEC 143
Hearing dates: 28 and 29 March 2022
Date of orders: 2 December 2022
Decision date: 02 December 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See orders at [63].

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: defendant charged with breach of clean-up notice offence in summons – whether summons was duplicitous – whether the activity the subject of the offence as charged constitutes a continuing offence – whether the activity the subject of the offence as charged constitutes a single criminal enterprise – summons not bad for duplicity.

Legislation Cited:

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 64(1), 91, 92, 101, 102, 110, 120

Cases Cited:

Environment Protection Authority v Charlotte Pass Snow Resort Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCCA 289; (2021) 250 LGERA 362

Environment Protection Authority v Riverina Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCCA 165; (2015) 90 NSWLR 57

Environment Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCCA 204; (2013) 85 NSWLR 125

Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341

Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373; (2006) 165 A Crim R 151

Hedberg v Woodhal [1913] HCA 2; (1913) 15 CLR 531

Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 467

Kiangatha Holdings Pty Ltd v Water NSW [2020] NSWCCA 263; (2020) 247 LGERA 1

S v The Queen [1989] HCA 66; (1989) 168 CLR 266

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Sell & Parker Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 48

Snowy Monaro Regional Council v Tropic Asphalts Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCCA 202; (2018) 362 ALR 359

Walsh v Tattersall [1996] HCA 26; (1996) 188 CLR 77

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Robert Leonard Pullinger (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
F Berglund (Prosecutor)
L Sims (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
N/A (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/327089
2020/327090
2020/327091
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Pullinger Files Notices of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Summonses

  1. In three separate amended summonses filed on 29 March 2022, Robert Pullinger is charged with offences against ss 91(5) and 102 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the POEOA”) committed at 62 Kyle Street, Rutherford NSW (“the property”), as follows:

  1. one count of failing to comply with condition 7, from 31 August 2018 to 16 November 2020, in respect of Clean-Up Notice 11548804 issued 5 June 2017 (“the notice”), as varied by the Notice of Variation of Clean-Up Notice 1564650 issued 18 May 2018 (“the varied notice”) (matter 2020/327089);

  2. one count of failing to comply with a prohibition notice, issued pursuant to s 101 of the POEOA, by the Honourable Matt Kean MP, Minister for Energy and Environment on 25 August 2020 (“the prohibition notice”) from 25 August to 16 November 2020 (matter 2020/327091) (“the prohibition notice offence”); and

  3. one count of failing to comply with condition 10 of the varied notice from 31 August 2018 to 16 November 2020…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2022] NSWLEC 143
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) brought proceedings against the respondent, Pullinger, for alleged breaches of environmental protection legislation. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the EPA sought enforcement of environmental compliance notices issued against Pullinger.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the EPA had correctly issued the compliance notices to Pullinger and if the notices were valid and enforceable. Further, it was necessary to determine whether Pullinger had breached the environmental protection laws and if so, whether the EPA's enforcement action was justified. The court also needed to consider the extent of any relief or penalty that should be imposed on Pullinger.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the compliance notices and the statutory framework governing environmental protection. It assessed the validity of the notices, the compliance obligations imposed on Pullinger, and the evidence of non-compliance. The court found that the EPA had acted within its statutory powers in issuing the notices and that the notices were valid and enforceable. It was established that Pullinger had indeed breached the relevant environmental protection laws. Consequently, the court upheld the EPA's enforcement action and determined that appropriate penalties and remedial actions were justified. The court ordered Pullinger to comply with the terms of the compliance notices and imposed financial penalties for the breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [63].

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.