Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2021] NSWLEC 144
Hearing dates:
14-16, 22, 23 September 2021
Decision date:
09 December 2021
Jurisdiction:
Class 4
Before:
Pain J
Decision:
See [164]-[166] of judgment
Catchwords:
POLLUTION – recovery of clean-up costs incurred by authority for pollution incident in 2018 as a debt under s 105(1) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – escape of PFAS contaminated water following heavy rainfall from former waste oil treatment site – whether reasonable costs and expenses incurred by authority
POLLUTION – recovery of clean-up cost incurred by authority for suspected pollution incident in 2020 as a debt under s 105(1) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – potential escape of PFAS contaminated water from former waste oil treatment site – whether reasonable costs and expenses incurred by authority
Maritime Services Board of New South Wales v Posiden Navigation Incorporated; Maritime Services Board of New South Wales v Liberian Cross Transports Incorporated [1982] 1 NSWLR 72
New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy, (12 December 2018)
Practice Note – Pre-Judgment Interest Rates
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Inquiry into firefighting foam contamination Part A – RAAF Base Williamtown, (February 2016)
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Environment Protection Authority (Applicant) Robert Lenard Pullinger (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: F Berglund (Applicant) R Pullinger (Respondent) Solicitors: Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Applicant)
File Number(s):
2020/300575
Judgment
Section 105(1) of the Protection of the Environment…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2021] NSWLEC 144
Case
[2021] NSWLEC 144
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Environment Protection Authority sought an order against Pullinger to recover money paid to him under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. The EPA argued that Pullinger had made false or misleading statements in an application to register a waste facility, resulting in payments to which he was not entitled. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court had to determine whether Pullinger had made false or misleading statements and whether the EPA was entitled to recover the payments made to him. The court examined the evidence and the relevant provisions of the Act. It found that Pullinger had indeed made false or misleading statements in his application. The court concluded that the EPA was entitled to recover the payments made to Pullinger under the Act. The court ordered that Pullinger repay the amounts to the EPA. Additionally, the court ordered that Pullinger pay costs of the proceedings.