Environment Protection Authority v Port Stephens Council - [2011] NSWLEC 209 - NSWLEC 2011 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWLEC

Environment Protection Authority v Port Stephens Council

[2011] NSWLEC 209

Land and Environment Court (NSW)|2011-08-18|Before: Craig J, Mr J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Land and Environment Court (NSW)

Decision date

2011-08-18

Before

Craig J, Mr J

Catchwords

(2006) 148 LGERA 278 Environment Protection Authority v Robinson [2004] NSWLEC 629 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
(2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Thomson
R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
(2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v White, CCA, 25 July 1991, unreported Veen v The Queen (No 1) [1979] HCA 7

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

(2006) 148 LGERA 278 Environment Protection Authority v Robinson [2004] NSWLEC 629 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25(2005) 228 CLR 357 R v ThomsonR v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309(2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v White, CCA, 25 July 1991, unreported Veen v The Queen (No 1) [1979] HCA 7

Judgment (34 paragraphs)

[1]

Judgment 1Port Stephens Council ( the Council ) has pleaded guilty to an offence against s 48(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ( the POEO Act ) in that from about 1 July 1999 to 7 July 2008 ( the charge period ) it occupied premises at which a scheduled activity was carried on and, at the time the activity was carried on, it did not hold a licence that authorised that activity to be carried on at those premises. The scheduled activity referred to in the charge is a "waste facility". The activity was conducted on the site of a former quarry, being lot 21 in deposited plan 570152, located at Medowie Road, Medowie ( the Site ). It is now necessary to sentence the Council for that offence. 2At all times throughout the charge period, s 48 relevantly provided: " 48 Licensing requirement - scheduled activities (premises - based) (1) Application of section This section applies to scheduled activities where Schedule 1 indicates that a licence is required for premises at which the activity is carried on. (2) Offence A person who is the occupier of any premises at which any such scheduled activity is carried on is guilty of an offence, unless the person is, at the that activity is carried on, the holder of a licence that authorises that activity to be carried on at those premises." 3During the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 April 2006 inclusive, the maximum penalty stipulated in s 48 for the commission of an offence by a corporation was $250,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, a penalty of $120,000 for each day the offence continues. During the period from 1 May 2006 to 7 July 2008, the maximum penalty for the commission of the offence by a corporation was increased to $1,000,000 while the daily penalty for a continuing offence remained as it had been. Although the conduct constituting the offence commenced prior to 30 April 2006, the fact that it continued until 7 July 2008, that is during the period in which the higher maximum penalty was applicable, that increased maximum penalty applies when determining the appropriate penalty in the present case ( R v White, CCA, 25 July 1991, unreported). 4During the charge period, the Site was used by the Council in the following way: (i) for storage of materials produced from road works, pavement works and drainage works intended for recycling or re-use, such as soils, road base materials, concrete and pipes; and (ii) for the disposal of surplus materials produced from road works, pavement works and drainage works that were considered unsuitable for recycling. These materials were used to fill the void space created by the quarrying activities formerly carried out on the Site. 5The use of the Site in this manner involved activities that fell within the relevant definition or description found in Sch 1 to the POEO Act and thus required a licence pursuant to s 48. Relevantly, they were activities that engaged the definition of "waste facilities", as that expression was defined in Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the Act between 1 July 1999 and 27 April 2008. Between 28 April 2008 and 7 July 2008 those same activities fell within those described under the heading "waste disposal (application to land)" found in cl 39 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the Act.

[2]

The facts 6The essential facts are not in contest between the parties. They are recorded in a statement of agreed facts compiled co-operatively between the prosecutor and the Council and supplemented by a bundle of documents tendered, without objection from the prosecutor, by the Council. The latter illuminated some of the historical facts and events leading to the Council's ownership and use of the Site, although given the period of time over which the Site has been held by the Council, there are significant gaps in those records. 7From the 1930's until the early 1970's, the Site was used as a quarry for extraction of soil, clay, siltstones and mudstones. Quarrying over that period had created a significant void in the Site, the base of which, from time to time, contained water. 8From the early 1970's until late 1976 the Site was used by its former owner as a "garbage dump". Records indicate that as at December 1975 the former owner was collecting garbage from the RAAF Williamtown Base on a daily basis and depositing it at the Site. That waste included putrescible waste and household garbage. Members of the local community were also depositing garbage into the quarry void. 9Use of the Site in that manner was reported to the Council by a health inspector who recommended that the use cease. However, in February 1976 the Council sought the approval of the Health Commission of NSW to use the Site as a sanitary depot for the disposal of garbage. While s 283 of the Local Government Act 1919 (now repealed) authorised a council to provide, maintain, manage, control and regulate "sanitary depots" for the disposal of "depot-rubbish", by subsection (4) of the section, the "situation" of any such depot required the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Health. The expression "depot-rubbish" was defined in s 282(2)(a) to be - "any kind of rubbish which in the interests of public health or convenience it is expedient or desirable to remove to a sanitary depot or elsewhere for sanitary disposal or destruction, and in particular shall include nightsoil, garbage, trade refuse, and articles of human food unfit for human consumption". No doubt the Council made application to the Health Commission for approval to use the Site as a sanitary depot for the disposal of garbage by reason of the provisions of s 283(4) of the Local Government Act. 10On 30 July 1976, the Health Commission reported to the Council that the Site had been inspected, as a result of which it indicated that no approval had been or would be given for use of the Site as a garbage depot. The Council was requested to take action to prevent the continuation of garbage disposal on the Site. 11There followed an exchange of correspondence between the Health Commission and the Council as to the waste materials that might be used for filling on the Site, thereby keeping space available on other garbage waste sites for putrescible waste. This exchange of correspondence concluded when the Health Commission wrote to the Council on 8 November 1976 in which the following statements were made: "The Commission has no objection to the excavation at Medowie being filled with builders' debris, hard fill and similar materials, unless they come within the meaning of depot-rubbish. Council's attention is drawn to the fact that if at any time disposal of this material creates any nuisance, action should be taken to prevent the nuisance re-occurring." 12In December 1976, the Council commenced negotiations to purchase the Site. A contract was later entered into and the purchase completed on 26 July 1977. 13The minutes of a Council meeting held on 23 August 1977 record that the Site had been purchased "to help meet future requirements for waste disposal and recycling". The minutes of that meeting further record that "the Site may only be used for disposal of non-toxic and non putrescible matter." It is agreed by the prosecutor that the minutes record the purpose for which the Site was acquired, a purpose that includes its use as a recycling yard. 14There is an absence of Council records relevant to the Site between 1977 and 1984. The manner in which the Site was used during that period is not recorded and is, in fact, unknown by any Council officer or representative.

[6]

Use of the Site during the charge period 22There were three groups of employees within the Council's structure that used the Site during the charge period. They were the drainage team that carried out drainage, maintenance and installation activities; the road works team that carried out road works within the local government area of the Council and the pavement patching team that carried out pavement works within the same area. Each of these groups, together with contractors retained by them, acted on an "understanding" that the Site could be used in conjunction with those works carried out by each group in the manner described in [4]. 23This "understanding" among the groups is not recorded in or the consequence of any official document of the Council. However, it is accepted to be an understanding that was passed down through employees in these teams as personnel changed over the years. Although the three groups fell within the department of the Council known as Engineering Services, no member of management or subordinate employee was given responsibility for management of the Site at any time during the charge period. In particular, it is accepted by the Council that during this time - (a) there was no weighbridge facility or docket system recording the volume or quantity of material either being taken to or removed from the Site; (b) there was not in place any process for assessing or classifying material brought onto the Site; (c) there was no training of Council employees in classifying waste taken to the Site; (d) none of the materials taken to the Site were the subject of any testing; (e) the Council did not have in place a waste classification system, procedure or policy relating to unlicensed premises; (f) access to the Site was controlled by a gate that was locked; (g) any persons with general Council authority could access the Site; (h) the maintenance co-ordinator for the Council held the master key for the lock on the access gate; (i) there was no register by which the holder of that key at any particular time could be identified; (j) on occasions contractors would be given the access key from employees supervising the work of those contractors; (k) there was no management plan or policy for the Site; (l) there were no sediment control or environmental control measures in place for the Site except for a weir at the discharge point of the Site at which retained water flowed into the Medowie Road table drain, the purpose of that weir being to retain stormwater and suspended solids in the quarry void other than during periods of intense or extended rainfall; and (m) periodically (probably every two or three months) a bulldozer was taken to the Site for the purpose of levelling it and pushing stockpiles of waste into the quarry void area.

[11]

Material brought to the Site and its quantification 29The material brought to the Site by the Council during the charge period was that which fulfilled the purpose or manner of use of the Site as described in [4]. In short, the materials that it acknowledges as having been brought to the Site for its purposes was material intended for recycling or disposal and was sourced from road works, drainage work or pavement works. To the extent that materials observed on the Site by officers of DECCW comprised quantities of glass bottles, tyres or other waste, inconsistent with the purpose of use by the Council, it is not material to which weight will be given when addressing the consequence of the Council's activities. Despite the fact the Site was kept locked by Council employees, it is accepted that, from time to time, the Site may have been used for the dumping of small volumes of waste by trespassers. It is also to be remembered that for some years prior to the Council assuming ownership, the Site was used for the disposal of general waste and some of that material would have become admixed with the material brought onto the Site by the Council. 30Of more significance in considering the impact of the Council's activities on the Site is an assessment of the volume of material brought onto the Site by it. In an endeavour to estimate this volume, Mr Richard McClenahan, a registered surveyor, was retained to make an estimate, based upon available aerial photography, historic survey plans and site surveys. As a result of his analysis of these materials, it was estimated that 23,500 m 3 of waste was brought onto the Site between 20 October 1998 and 11 May 2010. 31Although the calculation does not precisely correspond to the charge period, it being referable to the data available for analysis, the Council accepts that this is the most reliable calculation of waste material disposed of at the Site. The calculations are consistent with rough estimates made by staff of the Council at the time at which the prosecutor commenced investigations into the Council's use of the Site. From the evidence available to the Council, it estimated that 33,000 m 3 of material was taken to the Site between 1991 and July 2008. As at the latter date, the Council acknowledged that there was stored at the Site approximately 100 m 3 of timber waste and 15 m 3 of concrete blocks and pipes.

[12]

Site cleanup 32In August 2008 the prosecutor issued to the Council a Notice of Clean Up Action in respect of the Site. It was a requirement of that notice that the Council obtain and furnish to the prosecutor a report in relation to the waste deposited on the Site. Such a report was commissioned from and provided by Douglas Partners, consulting geotechnical and environmental engineers, in September 2008 ( the 2008 Douglas Report ). That Report was prepared following upon a systematic site assessment that included 31 soil test pits and water sampling from a number of locations. The 2008 Douglas Report included findings, summarised by the prosecutor, in the following way: (a) fill layers with glass, metal and/or brick were generally encountered in the south-western section and central portion of the Site at depths greater than 2 m; (b) fill containing asphalt, concrete and bricks in the majority of test pits; (c) fill layers with abundant organics and timber in the central and northern portions of the Site at varying depths; (d) asbestos or asbestos fibres in 5 soil and fibro samples obtained from 3 separate test pits at a depth no greater than 3.4 m below ground level; (e) eight of the 29 samples returned levels exceeding DECCW General Solid Waste Guidelines for one or more parameters including Benzo(a)pyrene and heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. Based on these results, the fill materials at the Site were classified as 'General Solid Waste' and 'Hazardous Waste' under the DECC Guidelines; (f) no visual or olfactory evidence to suggest the presence of gross contamination within the soils investigated, with the exception of one test pit, where a light to moderate hydro carbon odour was experienced in the fill materials; (g) all four water samples returned levels exceeding ANZECC 2000 criteria for Anions including chloride, ammonia and total phosphorous, and for metals including zinc and arsenic. Two of the water samples also returned levels exceeding ANZECC 2000 criteria for copper; and (h) no visual or olfactory evidence to suggest gross contamination within the water body. 33The 2008 Douglas Report also outlined the potential contamination arising from the operation of the Site by reason of the following matters: (a) the presence of abundant deleterious material within the fill, including concrete, asphalt and timber/organics spread across the majority of the Site; (b) the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon impact at several pit locations exceeding 'commercial/industrial land use' and 'restricted soil waste' criteria for benzo(a)pyrene. The presence of this material may have been due to the asphalt found in the fill material; (c) the presence of elevated heavy metal concentration in fill material exceeding 'restricted solid waste' criteria; (d) the presence of asbestos material (as bonded asbestos in fibro fragments and as asbestos fibre bundles in fill material) located in the south-western portion of the Site; and (e) slightly elevated nutrient and heavy metal concentrations in water samples collected from the water body. The Report concluded, in this regard, that given the proximity of residential premises to the Site, there was some potential for harm arising from the operation of the Site. 34In the context of the matters recorded in the 2008 Douglas Report, there must also be considered the further report of Douglas Partners prepared in May 2011, following a review of the Council's remediation plan for the Site. The findings of that review are not challenged by the prosecutor. There are three matters of present relevance to be noticed from that further report. They are: (a) the likely harm occasioned by the Site, given its proximity to residential premises, is pollution in the form of dust and odour emissions; (b) the materials observed in the quarry predominantly comprised sand, gravel and clay with some organics and asphalt materials which are not likely to generate leachate having any significant impact upon the surrounding environment; and (c) the hydrogeological study indicated a low permeability rock strata within the quarry, suggesting that groundwater flow into and out of the former quarry Site would be low, thereby reducing the potential for leachate migration.

[14]

Objective seriousness of the offence 37As I have earlier indicated, the maximum penalty for an offence by a corporation against s 48(2) of the POEO Act is $1,000,000. The fixing of the maximum penalty in that amount reflects the public expression by Parliament of the seriousness of such an offence ( Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 at 698). As would be obvious, the maximum penalty is reserved for an extremely serious case, it not being suggested by the prosecutor that the present offence falls into that category. Nonetheless, the seriousness with which the community, through the Parliament, views the offence by imposition of the maximum penalty imposed must be kept firmly in mind. 38Relevant to the seriousness or gravity of an offence against s 48(2) is the circumstance that the maximum penalty was increased from $250,000 to the present maximum of $1,000,000 on 1 May 2006. This increase is not only a recognition of seriousness but also an indication that sentencing patterns need to be adjusted. 39In the context of offences against the POEO Act, there are two principal elements to be considered. They are first the acts or omissions of the offender and secondly the consequences of those acts or omissions ( Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 280; (2008) 163 LGERA 71 at [22]). Before turning to those matters that will generally inform consideration of the elements that I have identified, namely those matters arising from the consideration under s 241, it is necessary to make an observation about the objects of the POEO Act itself. 40The objects of the POEO Act are stated in s 3. They include protection, restoration and enhancement of the quality of the environment of this State and also the reduction of risks to human health and degradation of the environment by the use of mechanisms promoting pollution prevention, the reduction to harmless levels of the discharge of substances likely to cause harm to the environment, the making of progressive environmental improvements including the reduction of pollution at source and the monitoring and reporting of environmental quality on a regular basis. A significant mechanism created by the Act itself is the establishment of a licensing regime for activities which, by their nature, have the potential for environmental degradation or harm. 41The defendant accepts that conduct conducted outside the regulatory requirements of the POEO Act "tends to undermine the statutory scheme for regulated use of premises used for the carrying out of activities scheduled under that Act". The prosecutor submits that, by reference to the objects of the POEO Act, the statutory scheme was compromised by - (i) the operation of unregulated waste facility having no control and containment measures installed on the premises; (ii) conduct of a waste facility in circumstances where there was no system in place for testing, assessment and classification of waste thereby increasing the risk of harm to the environment; (iii) operating a waste facility which involved the defendant avoiding the payment of levies payable to the prosecutor for facilities of that kind. 42While the activities of the Council did involve an undermining of the statutory scheme in the matter identified by the prosecutor, the actions of the Council were less subversive of the objects of the Act than the brief description earlier given might suggest. In the context of assessing seriousness, it must also be acknowledged that part of the activities carried on at the Site involved recycling of materials that came from road, drainage and pavement works. It was seen to comprise "inert" waste and satisfied the definition of such material until amendment of the POEO Act in April 2008. Objectives of the POEO Act stated in s 3 also included "re-use, recovery or recycling of materials" as well as assistance in the achievement of the objectives of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001. It was an objective of the latter Act to address resource recovery including reuse, reprocessing and recycling. Albeit unregulated, this in part is what the Council did on the Site. 43I turn now to consider those matters identified in s 241 of the POEO Act.

[15]

Actual or likely harm to the environment 44The defendant accepts that the deposition of waste at the Site did result in environmental harm. The word "harm", as used in the phrase "harm to the environment" is defined in the Dictionary to the POEO Act to include - "any direct or indirect alteration of the environment that has the effect of degrading the environment and, without limiting the generality of the above, includes any act or omission that results in pollution." 45As the defendant indicates, the admission that harm to the environment was occasioned by its activities is the inevitable consequence of the admission of each of the elements of the offence with which it is charged. Almost inevitably, disposal of waste will involve some degradation of the environment. In the present case that degradation is amply demonstrated by the 2008 Douglas Report, the essential findings of which I have earlier summarised. While the Site itself was already degraded by reason of the activities conducted upon it prior to the stewardship of the Council, the defendant accepts that those findings must, at least in large part, be attributed to its activities. 46In the context of potential harm, the statement of agreed facts records "the extent of likely harm" to be that deduced from the May 2011 Report of Douglas Partners. It will be remembered that the potential or likely harm there described was pollution in the form of dust and odour with a low potential for leachate migration from the Site. There is no evidence that either dust or odour pollution has in fact occurred nor is there any evidence of complaint being made as to the Council's activities on the Site during the charge period. 47The statement of agreed facts records that the environmental harm occasioned by the event "was at the low end of the scale." While not resiling from the acceptance of this fact, the prosecutor submits that the potential for harm was more serious given the absence of any measures on the part of the Council to monitor or address that potential. While I accept that the potential was higher than the reality, the evidence does not allow me to conclude how I should categorise this higher potential. It was not in contest that the materials deposited by the Council had generally fallen into the category of "inert" waste, perhaps with the exception of some asphaltic material. Overall, I am unable to assess the environmental harm as being other than at the low end of moderate. I have to assume that had the Council assessed its activities and the consequences for them before embarking upon use of the Site, it would have received advice similar to that given by Douglas and Partners in its May 2011 report.

[19]

Reasons for commission of the offence 56It is accepted by the prosecutor that the commission of the offence was not intentional. It was the consequence of a failure on the part of the Council to consider its obligations under the POEO Act as they related to the activities on the Site. The fact that those activities were conducted for such a lengthy period without adverting to the provisions of the legislation identified the absence of any proper management of the Site and failure to assign responsible personnel to undertake that task. 57Although accepting that commission of the offence was not deliberate, the prosecutor submits that the failure to seek a licence to conduct the waste facility was the result of negligence on the part of the Council. It points to the fact that the Council itself had a role to play in enforcing compliance with the POEO Act and would have been responsible for activities within its local government area that required it to address and apply the provisions of that legislation. However, no evidence was adduced identifying those other activities or facilities which would or could have required the Council to consider and enforce the provisions of the POEO Act. 58Related to this submission on the part of the prosecutor is a further submission that the objective seriousness of the offence is exacerbated by the fact that the Council is itself an environmental regulator. I do not accept this submission. A submission to similar effect was considered by Preston CJ in Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 289; (2006) 148 LGERA 278. After reviewing authorities in this Court, his Honour determined at [85] that "there is no principle that a penalty should be increased by reason that the defendant is a public authority rather than a private person." His Honour also determined at [86] that a Council, as a public body, "should not receive a more lenient penalty merely because of its status as a public body." 59The Council's failure to advert to its obligation to obtain a licence under the POEO Act when it ought reasonably to understand that obligation is relevant to the penalty to be imposed upon it. Beyond that, its existence as a public body neither aggravates nor mitigates the offence.

[24]

Contrition and remorse 66There is ample evidence before me demonstrating the contrition of the Council for commission of the offence with which it has been charged. It has been demonstrated, in part, by its entry of a plea of guilty at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 67Perhaps of more significance is the evidence that has come from the Council's General Manager and from a resolution of the Council itself. The General Manager, Mr Peter Gesling, has sworn an affidavit that was read in these proceedings. He acknowledged the inadvertence of the Council in failing to obtain a licence and in failing to have personnel responsible for management of the Site. He expressed his regret at the failure of the Council to fulfil its legal obligations; he expressed an apology to the Court and acknowledged contrition. 68In the present context the resolution of the Council itself, unanimously adopted at its ordinary meeting on 9 August 2011, must be noticed. The resolution then adopted is in the following terms: "Council expresses its concern and regret at the failure of its systems resulting in it not obtaining an Environmental Protection Licence for the former Medowie Quarry Site. It was and is the intention of Council to adhere to its legal obligations. Council apologises to the Court and the community for the system failure and confirms that all is being done to ensure there are no such failures in the future." 69These expressions of contrition and remorse are supported by action that has been taken by the Council. Mr Gesling has indicated that the Council has arranged to pay the prosecutor the sum of $591,137.40 by way of levies that it would otherwise have paid pursuant to s 88 of the POEO Act for depositing waste on the Site. It has also commissioned an environmental audit of all of the Council's waste management systems and sites so as to ensure that it fulfils all its legal obligations. One step taken by the Council in this regard is to cease operating any licensed waste facilities within its area. 70The Council's Operations Manager, Mr Peter Murray, has provided evidence to the effect that the cost of rehabilitating the Site is $307,000. The prosecutor accepts this to be a reasonable estimate. The Council's General Manager, Mr Gesling has deposed to the Council's commitment to complete this work and indicated that the overall costs incurred by the Council in relation to the Site arising from the offence and undertaking other remedial action will be in excess of $650,000. This does not include the payment of levies that would otherwise have been payable to the prosecutor had the facility been licensed, being the amount of $591,137.40 to which I have earlier referred. Further, the estimate does not take account of any penalty to be imposed upon the Council for the commission of the offence. 71While all of these actions, evidencing the contrition and remorse of the Council, are no less than would be expected of a public authority, they do demonstrate that the Council under its current governance and management fully recognises and takes seriously its environmental responsibilities. These are matters that are therefore properly to be weighed in mitigating the penalty to be imposed for the offence with which the Council has been charged.

[28]

Parity 79The principle of even-handedness or parity in sentencing requires the Court to have regard to the general pattern of sentencing for an offence of the kind being considered. However, care must be taken in essaying this task. Facts and circumstances that result in the imposition of a penalty in each case will, almost inevitably, vary from case to case. This divergence exemplifies the need for caution when considering penalties imposed for the commission of an identical or similar offence in another case. 80Both parties in the present case recognise the need for the caution that I have identified. Each suggest that some assistance may be gained from the decision of this Court in Environment Protection Authority v Smart Skip NSW Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 204. 81In Smart Skip the defendant pleaded guilty to an offence against s 144 of the POEO Act in that it used land as a waste facility without lawful authority. Section 144 would appear to be a provision that is complementary to s 48, it being the latter provision that imposes the obligation for a licence to be held where land is used as a waste facility that falls within the description of that activity in Sch 1 of the Act. The offence by Smart Skip involved the use of a Site for the transfer of more than 55,000 tonnes of waste per year, consisting of demolition waste that included concrete, metal, bricks, plastic and soil. 82The evidence in the case revealed that despite the volume of material taken to and from the land in question, there was no actual environmental harm. Other factors led to the conclusion by the trial judge that the offence was "at the low to medium end of the spectrum" (at [29]). It was found that the defendant in that case was a commercial operator in the waste industry and that by using the land that it did without a licence it had gained some commercial advantage over its competitors. That is not a consideration relevant to the determination of penalty in the present case. Otherwise, the subjective circumstances found to apply to Smartskip were generally similar to those that apply to the Council in the present case. 83A fine of $50,000 was imposed with costs in the sum of $20,000 agreed to be paid to the prosecutor by the defendant. While that determination is useful, the divergence of facts and circumstances between that case and the present must clearly be taken into account.

Environment Protection Authority v Port Stephens Council

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (34 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (16)

Cited By (3)