Legal Research
Cases
Environment Protection Authority v Timber Industries Ltd

Environment Protection Authority v Timber Industries Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 min read

Contents

On this page

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Timber Industries Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 25

PARTIES:
PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
Timber Industries Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S): 50048 of 2000

CORAM: Pearlman J

KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- water pollution - plea of guilty - penalty

LEGISLATION CITED: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 120(1), s 123, s 241

CASES CITED: Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Environment Protection Authority v Timber Industries Ltd [2000] NSWLEC 39;
R v Slattery (1996) 90 A Crim R 519;
R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309

DATES OF HEARING: 01/02/2001

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
03/02/2001

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Mr G J Plath (Solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
Mr A L Hill (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Murphy & Moloney

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND 50048 of 2000
ENVIRONMENT COURT

Pearlman J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES 2 March 2001

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

Prosecutor

TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD

Defendant

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The defendant, Timber Industries Ltd, has pleaded guilty to committing an offence under s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the POEO Act”). The summons charges that on or about 7 September 1999, at or near Oberon, the defendant polluted waters.

Background

2. The defendant has owned and operated a timber mill in Lowes Mount Road, Oberon (“the site”) for many years.

3. The defendant has a collection system on the site to manage run-off. The collection system comprises three pits at the front of the site, numbered DP-01, DP-02 and DP-03. They are connected via pipes. Pit DP-01 is the final pit and has a pump attached to it which pumps run-off to a wastewater storage dam at the back of the site.

4. At the time of the incident, the defendant was the holder of an environmental protection licence which regulated liquid discharge from the site. The licence included a condition to the effect that wastes must not be discharged from pit DP-02 which:

1) exceed a volume of 1 kilolitre (1,000 litres) on any day;

2) cause more that 20 milligrams per litre of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD);

3) contain more than 30 milligrams per litre of non-filterable residue (NFR).

5. An agreed statement of facts was submitted from which I derive the following description of what occurred and how it occurred.

The Incident

6. At approximately 9.10 am on 7 September 1999, two officers of the Environment Protection Authority (“the EPA”) were obtaining fuel at the Caltex Depot located opposite the site. Both officers observed a blue hose discharging black coloured liquid protruding through the front fence of the site.

7. One officer observed that the liquid flowed from the hose across a nature strip approximately 6 metres wide in front of the site, then through a drain passing under Lowes Mount Road and into a drainage channel which ran along the eastern side of Lowes Mount Road (“the drainage channel”).

8. The liquid was being…

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 Timber Industries 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: [2001] NSWLEC 25
Decision Date: 03/02/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, the Environment Protection Authority prosecuted Timber Industries Ltd for polluting waters in violation of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, which stemmed from an incident on 7 September 1999, where a pump malfunction led to the discharge of contaminated liquid from a pit on their Oberon site into a nearby drainage channel. The liquid, which contained high levels of biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids, was pumped out of pit DP-02 after a blockage prevented its transfer to pit DP-01 and subsequent pumping to a wastewater storage dam. Although the discharge did not reach any natural watercourses, it had the potential to harm the environment, particularly the aquatic life in the affected drainage system.

The court considered various factors in determining the penalty, including the extent and likelihood of environmental harm, the defendant's lack of proper maintenance and oversight, and the deliberate decision to pump the liquid outside the site rather than managing it internally. The court also acknowledged the defendant's remedial actions post-incident, such as implementing a cleaning schedule and issuing environmental policy reminders to staff. The defendant's previous conviction for a similar offence and their cooperation with the prosecution were also taken into account. Despite the lack of actual harm and the defendant's efforts to prevent future incidents, the court found the actions taken at the time of the incident demonstrated a lack of competence and responsibility. The court imposed a fine of $20,000, reflecting a 20% discount for the defendant's guilty plea and considering the overall circumstances of the case.

Orders