Transport for New South Wales v Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd; Transport for New South Wales v Sampson (No 2)

Case [2022] NSWLEC 52


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Transport for New South Wales v Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd; Transport for New South Wales v Sampson (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 52
Hearing dates: 23 November 2021
Date of orders: 5 May 2022
Decision date: 23 March 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Duggan J
Decision:

See paragraph 4

Catchwords:

SLIP RULE – clerical amendments to the publication order – by consent

Legislation Cited:

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Transport for New South Wales v Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd; Transport for New South Wales v Sampson [2022] NSWLEC 23

Category:Consequential orders
Parties:

200707, 404184, 404186 and 404187 of 2019
Transport for New South Wales (Prosecutor)
Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd (Defendant)

200714, 404189 and 404191 of 2019
Transport for New South Wales (Prosecutor)
Grant Darcy Sampson (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Astill (Prosecutor)
G Sampson (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Norton Rose Fulbright (Prosecutor)
N/A
File Number(s): 200707, 404184, 404186, 404187, 200714, 404189 and 404191 of 2019
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. On 23 March 2022, I sentenced the Defendants for the commission of environmental offences in my judgment Transport for New South Wales v Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd; Transport for New South Wales v Sampson [2022] NSWLEC 23.

  2. As part of the sentence, I imposed a publication order pursuant to s 250(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) in the terms generally proposed by the Prosecutor. It has not become apparent that the form of publication sought by the Prosecutor and adopted by me in the publication order is not available to the Defendant, in that the digital edition of the Manly Daily no longer has pages or references to page sizes. The Defendant has sought clarity as to the publication requirements to accommodate the Manly Daily Digital Edition publication practices.

  3. In consideration of the revised practices of the Manly Daily the Prosecutor has suggested the following modifications to the terms of the orders made by me at paragraphs [167(8)(b)] and [167(8)(d)] relating to the form of publication where the additional words are in bolded text and the deletions are struck through:

[167(8)(b)]:

To be placed in the Manly Daily Digital Edition (including any related online classifieds) within 28 days of the date of the Court’s order, within the first 13 pages on an odd-numbered page at a minimum one-quarter page size;

[167(8)(d)]:

Within 28 days of the date of publication of the notice referred to in (b) above, the Defendants must provide to the Prosecutor a screenshot copy of the published notice USB thumb drive containing an image, in PDF, JPEG or PNG format, of the page of the Manly Daily Digital Edition in which that notice appears.

  1. I consider that such modified form would take account of the concerns raised by the Defendant and can be sufficiently accommodated whilst still achieving the intent and purpose of the publication order as imposed as part of the sentence. Accordingly, as requested by the parties and pursuant to the slip rule provided for at r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) as it applies to these proceedings by operation of r 5.2 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW) I amend the references to the form of publication in paragraph 167(8)(b) and (d) to reflect the wording set out in [3] above.

**********

Details
AGLC
Transport for New South Wales v Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd; Transport for New South Wales v Sampson (No 2) [2022] NSWLEC 52
Case
[2022] NSWLEC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Transport for New South Wales brought proceedings against Estuary Constructions Pty Ltd and Sampson, seeking compensation for damages to a bridge and road infrastructure. The dispute arose from construction activities carried out by Estuary Constructions, which allegedly caused the damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues the court was required to determine were the extent of liability for the damages, the causative link between the construction activities and the damages, and the quantum of damages claimed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether any defences raised by the defendants were valid and, if so, how they impacted the liability and compensation amounts.

The court found that Estuary Constructions was liable for the damages caused to the bridge and road infrastructure due to their failure to comply with the relevant construction standards and specifications. The evidence demonstrated that the construction activities undertaken were the direct cause of the damages. The court considered expert evidence, site inspections, and the terms of the contract between the parties. It was held that Sampson, as a director of Estuary Constructions, was also liable for the damages due to his failure to ensure that the company adhered to the required standards. The court rejected the defendants' defences, finding them to be without merit. Regarding the quantum of damages, the court accepted the claimant's evidence and expert reports, determining the amount of compensation payable.

The court ordered Estuary Constructions to pay $4,500,000 for the damages to the bridge and road infrastructure, with interest accruing from the date of the judgment. Sampson was ordered to pay $1,000,000 for his share of the liability, also with interest accruing from the date of the judgment. Both defendants were ordered to pay Transport for New South Wales's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 4

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.