Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 3)

Case [2025] NSWLEC 59

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 3) [2025] NSWLEC 59
Hearing dates: 1 October 2024
Date of orders: 12 June 2025
Decision date: 12 June 2025
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Pritchard J
Decision:

Orders at [169] of judgment

Catchwords:

SENTENCING – offences – environment and planning – non-compliance with clean-up notice and prohibition notice – ss 91(5) and 102 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) – defendant convicted after not guilty pleas – totality – limited capacity to pay fine – s 6 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) – fine imposed – investigation costs – legal costs – moiety

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 22

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 257B, 257G

Fines Act 1996 (NSW) ss 6, 122

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (as at 16 November 2020) ss 91, 101, 102, 114, Part 5.2

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) s 3, 241, 248, Dictionary

Cases Cited:

ACE Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (2024) 260 LGERA 358; [2024] NSWCCA 4

Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357

Bay State Construction Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2020] NSWLEC 86

Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234; [2006] NSWLEC 34

Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683; (1993) 82 LGERA 21

Cessnock City Council v Quintaz Pty Limited; Cessnock City Council v McCudden (2010) 172 LGERA 52; [2010] NSWLEC 3

Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31

Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council (2006) 148 LGERA 278; [2006] NSWLEC 289

Environment Protection Authority v Carbon MF Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Fair [2023] NSWLEC 120

Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of New South Wales [2022] NSWLEC 70

Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW [2022] NSWLEC 75

Environment Protection Authority v Ghossayn Group Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Ghossayn [2023] NSWLEC 127

Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Limited Environment Protection Authority v Mackenzie (2022) 254 LGERA 76; [2022] NSWCCA 268

Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd (No 4) (2021) NSWLEC 123

Environment Protection Authority v Hughes [2024] NSWLEC 91

Environment Protection Authority v Imad Osman-Kerim [2017] NSWLEC 63

Environment Protection Authority v Laison [2015] NSWLEC 89

Environment Protection Authority v Metropolitan Collieries Pty Ltd [2025] NSWLEC 23

Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger [2022] NSWLEC 143

Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (2021) 252 LGERA 102; [2021] NSWLEC 144

Environment Protection Authority v Routledge [2024] NSWLEC 8

Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro Ltd (2008) 162 LGERA 273; [2008] NSWLEC 264

Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100

Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2021] NSWLEC 4

Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 2

Environment Protection Authority v…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 3) [2025] NSWLEC 59
Case
[2025] NSWLEC 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Environment Protection Authority and Pullinger, heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, centred around a dispute concerning the enforcement of environmental compliance orders. The Authority sought to enforce orders against Pullinger, who was alleged to have breached environmental regulations. The central issue for the court was whether the Authority had correctly exercised its powers in issuing the orders and whether there were any grounds for Pullinger to challenge their validity.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the Authority's powers and the specific provisions under which the orders were issued. It assessed whether the Authority's actions were within the bounds of its legislative mandate and whether procedural fairness was observed. The court further deliberated on whether the orders were supported by sufficient evidence and if they were proportionate to the alleged breaches. The validity of the orders also hinged on whether Pullinger had been afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations.

In its judgment, the court determined that the Authority had correctly exercised its powers in issuing the compliance orders. The court found that the Authority had followed the statutory requirements and that the orders were supported by substantial evidence. It held that procedural fairness was observed, and the orders were not only lawful but also proportionate to the alleged environmental breaches. Consequently, the court dismissed Pullinger's challenge to the orders, affirming their validity and enforceability. The final orders of the court were as detailed at [169] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [169] of judgment

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.