Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage
Case
•
[2017] NSWCA 161
•04 July 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage [2017] NSWCA 161
[2017] NSWCA 161
04 July 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage* concerned alleged contraventions of section 12 of the *Native Vegetation Act 2003* (NSW). The appellant admitted to clearing native vegetation but disputed the extent of the clearing, specifically whether "groundcover" had been cleared and whether the clearing needed to occur on each and every part of the land for a contravention to be established. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the interpretation of "clearing of native vegetation" under the Act, particularly in relation to the definition of "groundcover," and the geographical scope of the clearing required to constitute an offence. The Court also considered the appropriateness of remedial orders in light of the admitted contravention.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision below. It reasoned that the term "groundcover" encompassed vegetation that was not necessarily trees or shrubs, and that the clearing of such groundcover constituted a contravention of section 12. Furthermore, the Court found that the contravention did not require clearing to have occurred on every part of the land, but rather that the clearing of native vegetation, as defined, was sufficient. The Court affirmed the appropriateness of remedial orders in this context. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the interpretation of "clearing of native vegetation" under the Act, particularly in relation to the definition of "groundcover," and the geographical scope of the clearing required to constitute an offence. The Court also considered the appropriateness of remedial orders in light of the admitted contravention.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision below. It reasoned that the term "groundcover" encompassed vegetation that was not necessarily trees or shrubs, and that the clearing of such groundcover constituted a contravention of section 12. Furthermore, the Court found that the contravention did not require clearing to have occurred on every part of the land, but rather that the clearing of native vegetation, as defined, was sufficient. The Court affirmed the appropriateness of remedial orders in this context. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Negligence & Tort
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage v Turnbull [2017] NSWLEC 141
Cases Citing This Decision
3
High Court Bulletin
[2017] HCAB 9
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage v Turnbull
[2017] NSWLEC 141
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage v Turnbull
[2017] NSWLEC 141
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
7
Turnbull v Director-General, Office of Environment and Heritage (No 2)
[2014] NSWLEC 112
Turnbull v Director-General, Office of Environment and Heritage
[2014] NSWLEC 84