Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato Srl

Case [2000] NSWLEC 50

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato S.r.l and Ors [2000] NSWLEC 50
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR:
Barbara Filipowski

DEFENDANTS:
Fratelli D'Amato S.r.l
Crescenzo Rosato
Bruno Furlan
FILE NUMBER(S): 50088 of 1999; 50089 of 1999; 50090 of 1999
CORAM: Talbot J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- plea of guilty - penalty - mitigating circumstances - co-offenders
LEGISLATION CITED: Marine Pollution Act 1987 s 25, s 26, s 27(1)
Crimes Act 1900 s 439, s 442B, s 556A
CASES CITED: Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Tiger Nominees Pty Ltd and Anor v State Pollution Control Commission (1992) 75 LGRA 71
DATES OF HEARING: 02/03/2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
03/16/2000
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


PROSECUTOR:
Mr M H Tobias QC with Mr A L Hill (Barrister)
SOLICITORS:
Abbott Tout

DEFENDANTS:
Mr C A Porter QC with Mr J E Sexton SC
SOLICITORS:
Ebsworth & Ebsworth

JUDGMENT:

    IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 50088-90 of 1999
    ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J
    OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 16 March, 2000

    Barbara Filipowski
    Prosecutor
    v
    Fratelli D’Amato S.r.l
    Crescenzo Rosato
    Bruno Furlan

    Defendants

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


    1. The defendants appear to answer separate charges in respect of the discharge of oil into the waters of Gore Cove, Port Jackson in Sydney Harbour on 3 August 1999 in contravention of s 27(1) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987.

    2. Fratelli D’Amato S.r.l, the defendant in matter No 50088, is the owner of the vessel Laura D’Amato , from which the discharge occurred.

    3. The defendant in matter No 50089 is Crescenzo Rosato who was the Chief Officer of the ship.

    4. Bruno Furlan, the defendant in matter No 50090, was the Master of the ship.

    5. Each of the defendants has entered a plea of guilty.

    6. It is common ground that discharge occurred through the sea chest valves of the ship and that 294 cubic metres (294,000 litres) of Murban oil escaped into the waters of Sydney Harbour.

    7. The discharge took place while cargo was being unloaded to the Shell Oil Terminal in Gore Bay. It went unobserved for at least 25 minutes after it was decided that the use of the sea suction line as a crossover line within the cargo pipeline system would allow a shorter run of cargo line to the port and starboard slop tanks, thereby increasing the rate of discharge from those two tanks.

    8. The exit point for the crossover line to the sea chest valve is through the hull of the ship at a point about 13 to 14 metres below the surface.

    9. Pumping was stopped after the pungent smell of hydrogen sulfide, usually associated with Murban crude oil, was detected. An oil slick was observed developing along the hull to the aft end of the ship’s main deck. Oil could be seen welling up from below the water surface.

    10. In order to fully understand the circumstances under which the incident occurred and the apparent cause…

Continue reading Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato Srl

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato Srl [2000] NSWLEC 50
Case
[2000] NSWLEC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato Srl was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Mr. Filipowski, a plaintiff, was suing Fratelli D'Amato Srl, an Italian company, for breach of contract and other associated claims. Mr. Filipowski alleged that the defendants had failed to deliver a quantity of goods as agreed upon under a contract, resulting in significant financial losses and distress. The defendants, on the other hand, denied the allegations and argued that the plaintiff had failed to meet certain contractual obligations, thereby excusing their performance.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether there was a valid contract between the parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, the extent of the breach, and the appropriate remedies available under the circumstances. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff had fulfilled his own contractual obligations, which could potentially absolve the defendants from liability. Further, the court had to consider the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and the applicable law given the international nature of the dispute.

In its reasoning, the court found that there was indeed a valid contract between the parties, with clear terms and conditions. It was established that the defendants had failed to deliver the goods as per the agreement, thereby breaching the contract. The court also noted that the plaintiff had fulfilled his contractual obligations, which meant that the defendants could not rely on any defences based on non-performance by the plaintiff. The court concluded that the defendants were liable for the breach of contract and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that Australian law was applicable. The final orders included that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff damages, costs, and interest as per the court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

145. The formal orders of the Court are:

In matter No 50088 of 1999:

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.