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
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Robert Leonard Pullinger (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
F Berglund (Prosecutor)
L Sims (Defendant)
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
N/A (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/327089
2020/327090
2020/327091Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
Pullinger Files Notices of Motion Seeking to Set Aside Summonses
-
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:
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);
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
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
- AGLC
- Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2022] NSWLEC 143
- Case
- [2022] NSWLEC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.