Webb v Chung & Ors

Case [2002] NSWLEC 135



Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Webb v Chung & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 135
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Gary Alan Webb

DEFENDANTS
Won-Hwa Chung
Ki-Bong Seong
Vella Shipping S.A. Panama
FILE NUMBER(S): 50132 of 2001; 50133 of 2001; 50134 of 2002
CORAM: Cowdroy J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- marine pollution - charges against Owner
Master and Chief Engineer - s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act consideration.
LEGISLATION CITED: Marine Pollution Act 1987, s 8(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10
CASES CITED: Cameron v R [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 187 ALR 65;
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683; 82 LGERA 21;
Federal Steam Navigation Co v Department of Trade and Industry [1974] 1 WLR 505; [1974] 2 All ER 97;
Filipowski v Fratelli D'Amato S.r.1 and Others (2000) 108 LGERA 88;
Filipowski v Tanner [2002] NSWLEC 95;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
Thorneloe v Filipowski (2001) 52 NSWLR 60;
Valle v Morrison (60432: unreported CCA judgment 22 November 1995);
Veen v The Queen (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
DATES OF HEARING: 30/7/2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/22/2002
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


PROSECUTOR
Mr A Hill (Barrister)

SOLICITORS
Abbott Tout

DEFENDANTS
Mr G Nell (Barrister) with Ms F Rogers (Barrister)

SOLICITORS
Norton White


JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
MATTER No. 50132-34 of 2001
CORAM: Cowdroy J
DECISION DATE: 22/08/02

Gary Alan Webb
v

Won-Hwa Chung


Ki-Bong Seong


Vella Shipping S.A. Panama


JUDGMENT



1. In each of the above prosecutions the defendants are charged with having committed an offence against s 8(1) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987 (“the offence”). Such section relevantly provides:-

      8.(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), if any discharge of oil or of an oily mixture occurs from a ship into State waters, the master and the owner of the ship, and any other person whose act caused the discharge, are each guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding –
          …

2. In proceedings No. 50132 of 2001 the defendant Won-Hwa Chung (“the Master”) is charged that on 4 January 2001 he was the Master of the K. Pheonix (“the vessel” or “the K. Pheonix”) from a which a discharge of oil occurred in State waters being the waters of Newcastle Harbour.


3. In proceedings No. 50133 of 2001 the defendant Ki-Bong Seong (“the Chief Engineer”) is charged that at the time of the offence he was the Chief Engineer whose act caused the discharge of oil.


4. In proceedings No. 50134 of 2001 the defendant Vella Shipping S.A. Panama (“the owner”) is charged that it was the owner of the K. Pheonix when the offence was committed.


5. Each defendant has pleaded guilty to the charges and accordingly the Court is required to assess penalty in respect of each charge. By agreement the three proceedings are being heard together.

The Facts

6. The vessel is a Cape-size bulk…

Continue reading Webb v Chung & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Webb v Chung & Ors [2002] NSWLEC 135
Case
[2002] NSWLEC 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webb v Chung & Ors involved Gary Alan Webb, the plaintiff, who sought relief against Won-Hwa Chung and others, the defendants, before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, a journalist, alleged defamation arising from statements made by the defendants, including a television broadcast, a book, and public statements, which implicated the plaintiff in drug trafficking. The plaintiff sought damages for defamation, loss of income, and emotional distress.

The court was required to determine whether the statements made by the defendants were defamatory, whether they were made with malice, and whether the plaintiff's reputation was harmed as a result. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the defendants had a valid defence of truth or qualified privilege. The central issue was whether the defamatory statements were made with actual malice, which would require the plaintiff to prove that the defendants knew the statements were false or were reckless as to their truth.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the statements were indeed defamatory and that the plaintiff had suffered damage to his reputation. The court found that the defendants had acted with actual malice, as they had recklessly disregarded the truth of the statements. The court rejected the defence of qualified privilege, finding that the defendants did not have a sufficient duty to make the statements to the public or a third party. Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiff on all counts.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff substantial damages for defamation, including compensation for loss of income and emotional distress. The court also issued an apology and ordered the publication of a correction to address the defamatory statements. This comprehensive remedy aimed to restore the plaintiff's reputation and provide appropriate redress for the harm suffered.

Orders

Orders of the court

34. The Court orders in respect of Proceedings No. 50132 of 2001, namely, Gary Alan Webb v Won-Hwa Chung as follows:

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.