Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Harrison v Perdikaris [2015] NSWLEC 99 Hearing dates: 26 May 2015 Date of orders: 27 May 2015 Decision date: 27 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Preston CJ Decision: Orders as at [115]
Catchwords: OFFENCES AND PENALTIES – sentence – carrying out controlled activities in, on or under waterfront land without controlled activity approvals – offender counselled or procured contractors to increase capacity of two dams – objective seriousness of offences – no evidence that offences had impact on other persons’ rights under the Water Management Act – environmental harm was of moderate seriousness – practical measures to avoid environmental harm not taken – foreseeability of risk of environmental harm – control over causes giving rise to the offences – offences committed intentionally and with knowledge of illegality – offences not committed for financial gain – moderate overall objective seriousness – subjective circumstances of offender – record of prior convictions not aggravating factor – delayed pleas of guilty – offender’s genuine remorse for the offences – offender unlikely to reoffend – offender provided assistance to authorities – appropriate penalty is fine – offender ordered to pay prosecutor’s costs Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A, 21A, 22, 23
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ss 257B, 257G
Fines Act 1996 s 122
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 s 6(2)
Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948
Water Act 1912
Water Management Act 2000 ss 3, 52, 53, 55, 91E(1), 91(2), 92, 95(1), 96, 97(4), 100(1), 329, 347,363B(b), 364A, cl 3(1)(d) of Sch 10, Pt 1 Ch 3, Div 2 Pt 3 Ch 3
Water Management (General) Regulation 2004 cl 31
Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 Pt 1, Sch 2Cases Cited: Azzopardi v Gosford City Council [2002] NSWCA 234; (2002) 123 LGERA 118
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Boughey v The Queen [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10
Director General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Rae [2009] NSWLEC 137; (2009) 168 LGERA 121
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483
Environment Protection Authority v Anning (1998) 100 LGERA 354
Gartner v Kidman [1962] HCA 27; (1962) 108 CLR 12
Giorgianni v The Queen [1985] HCA 29; (1985) 156 CLR 473
Jugiong Quarries Pty Ltd v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation [1995] NSWLEC 74
Knezovic v Shire of Swan-Guildford [1968] HCA 38; (1968) 118 CLR 468
Lyons v Winter (1899) 25 VLR 464
Macag Holdings v Torrens Catchment Water Management Board [2000] SASC 115; (2000) 76 SASR 434
Matthews v Goulburn Wool Processors Pty Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Smart J, 6 November 1986, unrep)
Morton v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 8
Pace Farm Egg Products Pty Ltd v Newcastle City Council [2006] NSWCCA 403; (2006) 151 LGERA 260
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
R v Dib
Continue reading Harrison v Perdikaris
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Harrison v Perdikaris [2015] NSWLEC 99
- Case
- [2015] NSWLEC 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Harrison v Perdikaris was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a property transaction involving the plaintiffs, Harrison and another individual, and the defendant, Perdikaris. The plaintiffs sought to set aside a contract for the sale of property, alleging that the defendant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. They also claimed that the contract was voidable due to the defendant's failure to disclose certain material facts.
The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's conduct amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law and whether the contract was voidable due to non-disclosure. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts about the property, including its condition and the existence of a potential environmental hazard. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the plaintiffs had been fully informed about the property and that any non-disclosure did not render the contract voidable.
The court found that the defendant's conduct did not constitute misleading and deceptive conduct as there was no intention to mislead or deceive. However, the court did find that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts about the property, which rendered the contract voidable. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to set aside the contract and seek damages for any losses incurred as a result of the non-disclosure. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any further compensation beyond the return of the purchase price and costs.
The final orders of the court were that the contract for the sale of property between the plaintiffs and the defendant be set aside, and that the plaintiffs recover from the defendant the purchase price paid, together with interest and costs. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for additional damages.
The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's conduct amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law and whether the contract was voidable due to non-disclosure. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts about the property, including its condition and the existence of a potential environmental hazard. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the plaintiffs had been fully informed about the property and that any non-disclosure did not render the contract voidable.
The court found that the defendant's conduct did not constitute misleading and deceptive conduct as there was no intention to mislead or deceive. However, the court did find that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts about the property, which rendered the contract voidable. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to set aside the contract and seek damages for any losses incurred as a result of the non-disclosure. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any further compensation beyond the return of the purchase price and costs.
The final orders of the court were that the contract for the sale of property between the plaintiffs and the defendant be set aside, and that the plaintiffs recover from the defendant the purchase price paid, together with interest and costs. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for additional damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders as at [115]
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.