Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd trading as Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority

Case [2018] NSWLEC 1488


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd trading as Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2018] NSWLEC 1488
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 14 September 2018
Date of orders: 14 September 2018
Decision date: 14 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon SC
Decision:

See [4] below

Catchwords: APPEAL: revocation of suspension of EPA licence; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd trading as Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Berveling (Applicant)

Solicitors:
G&B Lawyers (Applicant)
E Bateman, Environment Protection Authority (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/237582
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 s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. That the appeal is upheld;

  2. That the Suspension Notice No. 1564881 issued by the Respondent and dated 31 July 2018 suspending Environment Protection Licence No. 21059 is revoked; and

  3. That there be no order as to costs.

……………………….

Susan Dixon

Senior Commissioner of the Court

Details
AGLC
Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd trading as Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2018] NSWLEC 1488
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 1488
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd trading as Paper Trade Processing (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the defendant, the Environment Protection Authority, which had issued an Environmental Protection Notice to the plaintiff, a waste management company, alleging that the plaintiff was disposing of waste in a manner that contravened the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 1987. The plaintiff sought a review of the Environmental Protection Notice, contending that it was invalid and that the penalty imposed was excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Environmental Protection Notice was validly issued and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate. The plaintiff argued that the notice was invalid because it was not accompanied by a statement of reasons as required by section 14 of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 1987. The plaintiff also contended that the penalty was excessive, disproportionate to the alleged breach, and not justifiable under the circumstances.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the Environmental Protection Notice was indeed invalid due to the absence of a statement of reasons. The court held that the failure to include a statement of reasons rendered the notice ineffective and that the penalty imposed could not stand. The court then proceeded to set aside the penalty and the invalid notice, ruling in favour of the plaintiff on both counts. The court further ordered that the penalty imposed be quashed and that the notice be set aside.

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.