Warringah Council v Koch and Severino

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Warringah Council v Koch and Severino [2006] NSWLEC 551
PARTIES:

50070 of 2005

PROSECUTOR:
Warringah Council

DEFENDANT:
Horst Koch

50071 of 2005

PROSECUTOR:
Warringah Council

DEFENDANT:
Santo Angelo Severino
FILE NUMBER(S): 50070; 50071 of 2005
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- Prosecution for polluting waters – proof of pollution – circumstantial evidence
LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 96(2)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 120(1)
CASES CITED: Cliftleigh Haulage Pty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 692;
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207;
Environment Protection Authority v All Chrome Shop Pty Ltd (1996) 89 A Crim R 474;
Environment Protection Authority v Munters Pty Ltd (1998) 98 LGERA 279;
Eslarn Holdings Pty Ltd v Tumut Council (Lloyd J, NSWLEC, 20 October 1998, unreported);
Imnetu v R [2006] NSWCCA 203;
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573;
Stevens v R (2005) 222 ALR 40
DATES OF HEARING: 26-28/04/2006, 01-02/05/2006, 09/05/2006, 30/05/2006
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

08/31/2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR:
Mr A Galasso, barrister
SOLICITORS
Mathews Folbigg

DEFENDANT
Mr M Baird, barrister
SOLICITORS
Wood Marshall Williams

DEFENDANT
Mr T Howard, barrister
SOLICITORS
Cara Marasco & Co


JUDGMENT:

      THE LAND AND
      ENVIRONMENT COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      BISCOE J

      31 August 2006

      50070 of 2005

      WARRINGAH COUNCIL v KOCH

      50071 of 2005

      WARRINGAH COUNCIL v SEVERINO

      JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

:


INTRODUCTION

1 These two water pollution cases have been heard together. The charge against each defendant is that on or about 21 February 2005 he committed an offence against section 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the Act”) by causing waters to be polluted from land at 48 Myoora Road, Terry Hills.

2 It is alleged that sediment-laden water and suspended solids were pumped from 48 Myoora Road into the waters on the western fork of a watercourse running through the adjoining property to the south, 46 Myoora Road. The point of discharge was a small pond on that western fork referred to in the evidence as “the commencement point”. The watercourse connects to Kieran’s Creek which joins Cowan’s Creek. The “waters” for the purposes of s 120(1) constitute the watercourse and Kieran’s Creek.

3 The contravention is alleged to have occurred during the course of construction of a function and reception centre at 48 Myoora Road. These works were authorised under a conditional development consent granted by the prosecutor council on 1 March 2004, which was modified pursuant to Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 96(2), and under a construction certificate issued by Insight Development Consultants Pty Limited on 7 February 2005.

4 The defendant in the first proceedings, Mr Horst Koch, was at all material times the holder of a builder’s licence and the person nominated as the builder on the construction certificate. It is alleged that he was the person implementing the development consent and the construction certificate. The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Warringah Council v Koch and Severino and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2006] NSWLEC 551
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warringah Council prosecuted Horst Koch and Santo Angelo Severino for allegedly polluting waters from land at 48 Myoora Road, Terry Hills, in contravention of section 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The alleged contravention occurred during construction of a function and reception centre at 48 Myoora Road. The primary issue for determination was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the discharge of waters from 48 Myoora Road to a watercourse on the adjoining property polluted the receiving waters. The court found that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the discharge from 48 Myoora Road had polluted the waters of the watercourse. The court held that the samples taken by the Catchment Liaison Officer were not reliable and did not provide evidence to prove that the discharge from 48 Myoora Road had polluted the receiving waters. The court dismissed the charges against both defendants and reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.