RICHTER & RICHTER

The parties to this proceeding were Richter & Richter, the applicants, and the respondent, whose identity is not specified. The dispute concerned an application for an order under s 1324 of the *Environmental Protection Act 1994* (Qld) (the Act) to restrain the respondent from continuing certain activities. The matter came before Foster J of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's activities constituted a contravention of the Act, thereby entitling the applicants to seek injunctive relief under s 1324. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the respondent's actions, which involved the discharge of effluent into a waterway, amounted to an offence under the Act, and if so, whether the applicants had standing to bring the application.

Foster J reasoned that the evidence established that the respondent had discharged effluent into a waterway, which was a contravention of s 319(1) of the Act. His Honour found that the applicants, as persons who had a direct interest in the environmental impact of the respondent's activities, had standing to bring the application under s 1324. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act, concluding that the discharge of effluent without a proper environmental authority was an offence.

The Court made orders restraining the respondent from continuing the discharge of effluent into the waterway and ordered the respondent to pay the applicants' costs.