Natural Resources Access Regulator v Green Leaf Australia Group Pty Limited; Natural Resources Access Regulator v Xiuming Lin

The Natural Resources Access Regulator brought proceedings against Green Leaf Australia Group Pty Limited and its director, Xiuming Lin, in the County Court of Victoria. The Regulator alleged that the company and Mr. Lin had engaged in activities in relation to a commercial farming business cultivating tomato, cucumber, and ginger crops without the necessary approvals under the Water Management Act 2000. Specifically, it was alleged that the company had used dams without approval, constructed or extended dams without approval, and carried out controlled activities without approval. The Regulator also brought alternative charges relating to the construction of dams without approval. The central legal issues were whether certain charges had commenced after the statutory time limitation had expired, the application of rebuttable presumptions under section 367B of the Water Management Act 2000, the executive liability provisions for company directors under section 363 of the Water Management Act 2000, the deeming provision in section 91L of the Water Management Act 2000, and the admissibility of evidence on a voir dire relating to statutory notices issued to the corporation and director under the Water Management Act 2000.

The court held that certain charges had indeed commenced after the statutory time limitation had expired, and therefore, those charges were dismissed. The court found that the rebuttable presumptions under section 367B of the Water Management Act 2000 did not apply in the circumstances of this case. Regarding executive liability, the court found that Mr. Lin was liable as a director of the company under section 363 of the Water Management Act 2000, as he had failed to prevent the company from contravening the Act. The deeming provision in section 91L of the Water Management Act 2000 was considered, but the court found that it did not apply to the facts of this case. The court also determined that evidence on the voir dire relating to statutory notices issued to the corporation and director was admissible. Ultimately, the court found both the company and Mr. Lin guilty on the remaining charges.

The court ordered verdicts of guilty on the remaining charges and dismissed the alternative charges. The orders were made in paragraphs [644] to [648] of the decision, which included the specific details of the verdicts and the imposition of any penalties or fines. The company and Mr. Lin were found liable for the contraventions of the Water Management Act 2000 and were subject to the penalties and fines determined by the court.