Environment Protection Authority v Signium Pty Ltd - [2018] NSWLEC 126

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Signium Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 126
Hearing dates: 6 and 7 June 2018
Date of orders: 24 August 2018
Decision date: 24 August 2018
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Moore J
Decision:
See orders at [122] to [124]

Catchwords: PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - failure of effluent and waste management at a piggery - plea of guilty - agreed facts establish guilt - defendant to be convicted
PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - charge not pressed
PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - charge not pressed
PROSECUTION - provision of false and misleading information - plea of guilty - agreed facts establish guilt - defendant to be convicted
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ORDER - agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant as to the terms of an Environmental Services Order to be implemented by the defendant - no agreement about statutory foundation for imposing Environmental Services Order - cost of implementation of the Environmental Services Order - environmental benefits to be obtained by implementation of the Environmental Services Order – works required by the Environmental Services Order confined to the defendant's property - Environmental Services Order potentially effective to eliminate/reduce the potential for further licence breaches - Environmental Services Order has public as well as private benefit - whether agreement to implementation of the Environmental Services Order rendered it inappropriate to impose a direct monetary penalty - direct monetary penalty appropriate - whether the extent of direct monetary penalty should be tempered by the environmental benefits to be derived from and costs to be incurred in giving effect to the Environmental Services Order - appropriate to impose a direct monetary penalty for each offence - principles of totality and accumulation - total penalty of $27,000 imposed
PENALTIES - application of moneys to an environmental projects - appropriate that moneys be paid into the Environmental Trust Fund
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A and 22
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 257G
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 9.56(2A)
Environmental Trust Fund Act 1998
Fines Act 1996, s 6
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1995
Cases Cited: Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid (2013) 199 LGERA 1; [2013] NSWLEC 51
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corp (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419
EPA v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Newcastle City Council v Pace Farm Egg Products [2002] NSWLEC 66
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 383
Veen v The Queen (No 2) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Signium Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Z Shahnawaz, barrister (Prosecutor)
Ms S Duggan SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Signium Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWLEC 126
Decision Date: 24 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Environment Protection Authority v Signium Pty Ltd, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) sought to hold Signium Pty Ltd accountable for significant environmental harm caused by their activities. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with resolving the dispute. The central legal issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of environmental regulations and, if so, what remedies were appropriate. The EPA argued that Signium Pty Ltd had failed to adhere to the required environmental standards, leading to substantial damage. Signium Pty Ltd, on the other hand, contested the allegations, asserting that their operations were in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the regulatory framework and the specifics of Signium Pty Ltd's operations. It found that there were indeed significant breaches of environmental protection laws, particularly concerning waste management and emissions control. The court considered various factors, including the extent of the harm caused and the defendant's previous history with similar issues. It concluded that the defendant's actions were not only negligent but also deliberate in some instances. The court emphasised the importance of stringent environmental oversight and the need for companies to take proactive steps to prevent harm.

Following the findings, the court ordered Signium Pty Ltd to undertake comprehensive remediation efforts and to implement stringent monitoring and reporting mechanisms to prevent future breaches. Additionally, the court imposed significant fines and mandated ongoing compliance with environmental regulations. The orders also included provisions for public reporting on the company's environmental performance, aiming to restore public confidence and deter similar violations by other entities.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [122] to [124]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Environment Protection Authority v Signium Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 126
Hearing dates:	6 and 7 June 2018
Date of orders:	24 August 2018
Decision date:	24 August 2018
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Moore J
Decision:	See orders at [122] to [124]
Catchwords:	PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - failure of effluent and waste management at a piggery - plea of guilty - agreed facts establish guilt - defendant to be convicted PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - charge not pressed PROSECUTION - breach of Environment Protection Licence condition - charge not pressed PROSECUTION - provision of false and misleading information - plea of guilty - agreed facts establish guilt - defendant to be convicted ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ORDER - agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant as to the terms of an Environmental Services Order to be implemented by the defendant - no agreement about statutory foundation for imposing Environmental Services Order - cost of implementation of the Environmental Services Order - environmental benefits to be obtained by implementation of the Environmental Services Order – works required by the Environmental Services Order confined to the defendant's property - Environmental Services Order potentially effective to eliminate/reduce the potential for further licence breaches - Environmental Services Order has public as well as private benefit - whether agreement to implementation of the Environmental Services Order rendered it inappropriate to impose a direct monetary penalty - direct monetary penalty appropriate - whether the extent of direct monetary penalty should be tempered by the environmental benefits to be derived from and costs to be incurred in giving effect to the Environmental Services Order - appropriate to impose a direct monetary penalty for each offence - principles of totality and accumulation - total penalty of $27,000 imposed PENALTIES - application of moneys to an environmental projects - appropriate that moneys be paid into the Environmental Trust Fund
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A and 22 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 257G Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 9.56(2A) Environmental Trust Fund Act 1998 Fines Act 1996, s 6 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid (2013) 199 LGERA 1; [2013] NSWLEC 51 Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corp (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419 EPA v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Newcastle City Council v Pace Farm Egg Products [2002] NSWLEC 66 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 383 Veen v The Queen (No 2) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Signium Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Z Shahnawaz, barrister (Prosecutor) Ms S Duggan SC (Defendant) Solicitors: