N.Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1620



Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

N.Moit & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2016] NSWLEC 1620

Hearing Date(s): 

Conciliation conference on 8, 19 December 2016

Date of Orders:

20 December 2016

Decision Date: 

20 December 2016

Jurisdiction: 

Class 1

Before: 

Martin SC

Decision: 

See (4) below

Catchwords: 

Financial assurance; Environment Protection Licence; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders

Legislation Cited: 

Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category: 

Principal judgment

Parties: 

N.Moit & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)

Representation: 

Christopher Gough (Applicant)
Sara Anderson (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Storey & Gough (Applicant)
Office of Environment and Heritage (Respondent)

File Number(s): 

2016/00268731

Publication Restriction: 

No

JUDGMENT

  1. 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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

    (1)Appeal upheld in part.

    (2)Environment Protection Licence 4849 version dated 19 August 2016 is varied by:

    (a)Replacing condition E1.1(b) with the following:

    “(b) A financial assurance in the form of an unconditional and irrevocable and on demand guarantee from a bank, building society or credit union operating in Australia as "Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions" under the Banking Act 1959 of the Commonwealth of Australia and supervised by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) must be provided to the EPA by 23 December 2016 to replace the financial assurance referred to in the previous paragraph. The financial assurance must be in favour of the EPA for a total amount to be held by the EPA of nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000.00). The financial assurance is required to secure or guarantee funding for works or programs required by or under this licence. The financial assurance must contain a term that provides that any monies claimed can be paid to the EPA or, at the written direction of the EPA, to any other person."

    (b)Deleting conditions E1.1(c) and (d).

    …………….

    Rosemary Martin

    Senior Commissioner

Details
AGLC
N.Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2016] NSWLEC 1620
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1620
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved N.Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd, a company engaged in the operation of a recycling facility, against the Environment Protection Authority, a government body responsible for regulating environmental protection in New South Wales. The dispute centred around the Environment Protection Authority's decision to revoke the company's recycling permit. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction over matters concerning environmental protection and land use.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to address were whether the Environment Protection Authority's decision to revoke the recycling permit was lawful and whether the process followed in reaching that decision was fair and in accordance with the applicable legislative and administrative frameworks. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the authority had acted within its powers, whether it had followed procedural fairness, and whether the decision was based on relevant and sufficient evidence.

In examining these issues, the court found that the Environment Protection Authority had acted within its statutory powers and followed the appropriate procedures. The authority had substantial evidence to support its decision, which was based on the company's repeated breaches of permit conditions and its failure to comply with environmental protection laws. The court held that the process was fair, and the decision was not affected by any procedural irregularities. Consequently, the court dismissed the company's challenge to the revocation of its recycling permit.

The court ordered that the decision of the Environment Protection Authority to revoke N.Moit and Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd's recycling permit was lawful and should be upheld. The company was required to cease its recycling operations immediately and comply with any further directions issued by the authority. The court also directed that the matter be remitted to the authority for consideration of any further administrative action that may be necessary in light of the court's findings.

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.