Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: MET Recycling Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2017] NSWLEC 1459 Hearing dates: Conciliation Conference on 3 august 2017 Date of orders: 25 August 2017 Decision date: 25 August 2017 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Martin SC Decision: See (4) below
Catchwords: APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LICENCE: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: MET Recycling Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Environmental Protection Agency (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Dr Steven Berveling, Barrister (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Mr Scott Nash, Barrister (Respondent)
Mr N Buckley (Applicant)
Mr G Plath (Respondent)
File Number(s): 56222 of 2017 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.
-
The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.
-
In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.
-
The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:
The parties agree that the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) will, within 3 working days of receiving from the Applicant the Financial Assurance required by condition E1.2 as set out at Annexure A to this agreement, issue an environment protection licence to the Applicant in the form set out at ‘Annexure A’ to this agreement.
Each party pay their own costs.
…………….
Rosemary Martin
Senior Commissioner
56222.17 (Annexure A) (8.08 MB, pdf)
Amendments
25 August 2017 - Representation amended
28 August 2017 - Amendment to catchwords
- AGLC
- MET Recycling Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2017] NSWLEC 1459
- Case
- [2017] NSWLEC 1459
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the EPA had the legal authority to revoke MET Recycling's licence, as well as whether the decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and supported by appropriate reasons. A key issue was whether the EPA had acted within its statutory powers, and if the appellant's right to procedural fairness had been breached. The court also had to examine the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the EPA's decision was based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors.
The court held that the EPA did have the authority to revoke MET Recycling's licence under the POEA. The court found that the EPA's decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and supported by appropriate reasons. The evidence presented by the EPA demonstrated that MET Recycling had breached its licence conditions, which justified the revocation. The court also determined that the appellant's right to procedural fairness had not been breached, as it had been given an opportunity to present its case and respond to the allegations.
The appeal was dismissed, and the EPA's decision to revoke MET Recycling's licence was upheld. The court found that the EPA had acted within its statutory powers and that its decision was based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors. The court also held that the appellant's right to procedural fairness had not been breached. As a result, the EPA's decision to revoke MET Recycling's licence was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
See (4) below
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.