South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

JUDGMENT OF: His Honour Deputy President Judge Gilchrist

Sentencing - Early plea by the defendant TRG Transport in connection with offences under ss 11 and 14 of the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 (the DS Act) that were alleged to have occurred on or about 6 February 2023 - Section 11 of the DS Act imposes a duty upon a person who is keeping, handling, conveying_, using or disposing of a_ dangerous substance_, or in_ transporting dangerous goods_, to take appropriate precautions and exercise reasonable care so as to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person (including himself or herself), or the safety of property and to prevent the risk of environmental harm and it creates an offence not doing so that relevantly is subject to a maximum fine of $250,000 - Section 14 of the DS Act requires a person who is keeping a_ prescribed dangerous substance in any premises to be the holder of an appropriate licence and creates an offence if such a person does not hold the appropriate licence that relevantly is subject to a maximum fine of $50,000 - TRG Transport was the provider of specialised transport services and entered into an arrangement with Trical Pty Ltd to transport and keep dichloropropene and chloropicrin in 11 ISO containers at the its workplace on an interim basis - It was estimated that TRG Transport had within its keep 102,901 litres of dichloropropene and 13,265 litres of chloropicrin, both of which are dangerous substances for the purposes of the DS Act and both of which can cause injury and environmental damage - These amounts were well in excess of the maximum amount permissible without a licence under the DS Act and TRG Transport did not have the requisite licence - In connection with the storage of the containers an investigation by Safework SA found no evidence of any controls being in place to prevent or contain spills, no impact protection, no additional security to restrict access, no adequate emergency plan to manage the risks of storing the prescribed dangerous substances at the workplace, no adequate training of workers in the risks of storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin, and no engagement with the emergency services regarding storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin - Principles relevant to sentencing considered and discussed - The offence under s 11 of the DS Act is a very serious offence - The offence the offence under s 14 of the DS Act is a less serious offence - In this case the offences were not flagrant or motivated by greed but occurred because of a lack of knowledge as to the applicable legal obligations occasioned by naivety or carelessness, albeit that in the context of a company that might be expected to have regularly transported dangerous goods, that naivety or carelessness is disturbing - The environmental and personal harm that could have occurred as a result of the s 11 offence may have been significant such that this must be seen as serious offending - On the scale of seriousness, both offences are somewhere between the lower and middle end of the range - In respect of both offences, general deterrence looms large but personal deterrence is not a significant factor - TRG Transport is entitled to considerable credit for its prior good record, its co-operation with Safework SA, its genuine remorse and its commitment to future compliance - It is also entitled to a full discount on account of its early pleas - Held: Convictions and fines of $42,000 and $5,600 imposed plus costs and victims of crime levy - Dangerous Substances Act 1979, Dangerous Substances (General) Regulations 2017, Work Health and Safety Act 2012, Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012 and Sentencing Act 2017.

Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) LGERA 234

Hillman v Astec Paints Australasia Pty Ltd [2012] SAIRC 12

Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ptd v Environmental Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683

Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357

Plath v Rawson [2009] NSWLEC 178; (2009) 170 LGERA 253

R v Bahrami [2020] SASCFC 111

R v Dwyer (2015) 121 SASR 587

Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1; [1972] AC 153

Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357

1. On 13 May 2025, the defendant, TRG Transport Pty Ltd (ABN 98 100 280 144) (TRG Transport), through its counsel, pleaded guilty to offences under ss 11 and 14 of the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 (the DS Act), that were alleged to have occurred on or about 6 February 2023. I must now determine what sentence should be imposed in connection with these pleas.
2. Section 11 of the DS Act imposes a duty upon a person who is keeping, handling, conveying, using or disposing of a dangerous substance, or in transporting dangerous goods, to take appropriate precautions and exercise reasonable care so as to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person (including himself or herself), or the safety of property and to prevent the risk of environmental harm. The section provides that a breach of this duty is an offence. Where the offence does not result in death or serious injury, in the case of a body corporate, a breach is punishable by maximum penalty of $250,000. In the case of any other entity, it is punishable by a maximum penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both.
3. Subject to prescribed exemptions, which for present purposes do not apply, s 14 of the DS Act requires a person who is keeping a prescribed dangerous substance in any premises to be the holder of an appropriate licence. The section creates an offence if such a person does not hold the appropriate licence. In the case of a body corporate, it is punishable by maximum penalty of $50,000. In the case of any other entity, it is punishable by a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both.
4. Pursuant to s 2(1) of the DS Act a "dangerous substance" is defined as:

(a) dangerous goods; or

(b) any other substances or article that is toxic, corrosive, flammable or otherwise dangerous and declared by the Regulations to be a dangerous substance.

1. In this case, the substances that form the subject of the charges are dichloropropene and chloropicrin. Both are prescribed dangerous substances pursuant to reg 19 of Dangerous Substances (General) Regulations 2017.
2. Dichloropropene is a flammable substance that is used as a pesticide. It is toxic to humans and to aquatic life, with long lasting effects. The maximum quantity of dichloropropene that can be kept without a licence is 1200 litres.
3. Chloropicrin is a flammable substance that is used as a fumigant. It is very toxic to humans and concentrations in air exceeding two parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and health. Amongst other things, it can cause skin corrosion and irritation, eye damage and irritation, and can compromise respiratory function. It is also hazardous to aquatic environments. The maximum quantity of chloropicrin that can be kept without a licence is 250 litres or kilograms
4. The pleas entered into by TRG Transport arise out of the following facts.
5. At all relevant times TRG Transport carried on work at its site located at 101 Wilkins Road, Wingfield (the workplace). Amongst other things, it provided specialised transport services, including long distance road transport and the storage of containers. Its sole director and company secretary is Mr Giuseppe Antonio Musolino.
6. At some point TRG Transport entered into an arrangement with Trical Pty Ltd (ABN 31 600 066 966) (Trical) to transport and keep dichloropropene and chloropicrin in ISO containers at the workplace on an interim basis.
7. Based on information received, inspectors from SafeWork SA attended the workplace on 6 February 2023, and observed that within it were eleven ISO containers including one full container of chloropicrin, one empty container of chloropicrin, six full containers of dichloropropene, and three empty containers of dichloropropene. The capacity of each of the ISO containers was approximately 22,000 litres. As such, it is estimated that TRG Transport had within its keep 102,901 litres of dichloropropene and 13,265 litres of chloropicrin.
8. The ISO containers were stored adjacent to each other and were stacked in two levels at the southern end of the workplace adjacent to a rail track. The area where the ISO containers were situated was observed by the Inspectors to not be bunded with "no hazardous substance" placarding at the site entrance. It is accepted that TRG Transport had been keeping these prescribed dangerous substances for several months. The Safework SA investigation found no evidence of any controls being in place to prevent or contain spills. There was no impact protection, no additional security to restrict access, no adequate emergency plan to manage the risks of storing the prescribed dangerous substances at the workplace, no adequate training of workers in the risks of storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin, and no engagement with the emergency services regarding storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin. There was an emergency shower and eye wash station at the workplace which was located around 50 metres from the location of the ISO containers.
9. Expert evidence established that had a single ISO container of dichloropropene or chloropicrin been released into the atmosphere from the workplace, by reference to the atmospheric conditions as they were on 6 February 2023, there would be significant on-site and off-site consequences. Release of chloropicrin in concentrations exceeding 2 ppm would be immediately dangerous to life and health between 800 and 1700 metres down wind. Smaller release in ppm would have similar effects but at a reduced distance. Release of dichloropropene would form a cloud of flammable vapours at distances of up to 50 metres. If an ignition source was introduced, dichloropropene would ignite. Thus, although no actual harm was caused, the potential for such harm is self-evident.
10. Following the attendance by Safework SA, TRG Transport was served a notice pursuant to s 33 of the DS Act, requiring it to either apply for an appropriate dangerous substances licence or alternatively provide a timetable to remove the ISO containers at the worksite and confirm that the alternative location was suitably licenced for storage of dangerous substances. It is acknowledged that it complied with this notice and all other notices that were issued by Safework SA pursuant to s 155 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012.
11. Mr Musolino attended a record of interview with Safework SA on 16 December 2024. He made full admissions to the offending. It is accepted that TRG Transport fully co-operated with the investigation.
12. The information and summons issued against TRG Transport alleges that it failed to take such precautions and exercise such care as was reasonable in the circumstances in order to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person (including himself or herself), or the safety of property; and prevent the risk of environmental harm in that:
    • The ISO containers containing chloropicrin and dichloropropene were not guarded from impact by vehicles on site;
    • No safe systems of work had been established for the storage of dangerous substances. They had not conducted a risk assessment for storage of dangerous goods as required by Regulation 351 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012, nor had they considered the risk of spills or loss of containment;
    • There was no compliant fire protection equipment in the vicinity of tanks containing dichloropropene;
    • The accidental release of dichloropropene exposes workers to the risk of death or serious injury if the flammable vapours ignited;
    • The accidental release of chloropicrin exposes workers to the risk of death or serious injury if the flammable vapours are inhaled;
    • The accidental release of chloropicrin exposes members of the public to the risk of death or serious injury if toxic vapours are inhaled;
    • The accidental release of dichloropropene poses a risk of environmental damage if it enters the waterways;
    • The accidental release of chloropicrin poses a risk of environmental damage if it enters the waterways.
13. The guilty pleas entered by TRG Transport's counsel constitute an admission by TRG Transport to all of the elements of the offences,[1] such that the particulars just cited are to be taken as having been established.
14. Mr Musolino filed an affidavit wherein he provided information in connection with TRG Transport and these offences. He was not required for cross examination. The matters attested to in his affidavit appear credible and I accept his evidence. Based upon it I find that Mr Musolino started a family transport business in about 1988, at which time it had only one truck but TRG Transport has since built up to a fleet of 70 trucks, employing 95 people. It is the third largest wharf carter in Adelaide. It has been providing transport services to Trical for the last ten years or so, and is normally contracted by it to transport its bulk products that are in tanks that have been delivered to the Port Adelaide Terminal to Trical's facility at Wingfield. Upon arrival there, the tanks are decanted and the empty tanks are exported in the same manner. As a result of the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the issues this cause to the shipping industries, entities such as Trical occasionally over ordered to compensate for delays, such that when the restrictions were lifted, there could be a surplus of items. It seems likely that this occurred here, in that a significant amount of product ordered by Trical comprising of ISO containers of dichloropropene or chloropicrin, remained on the wharf at considerable expense to it. Given its longstanding relationship with Trical, TRG Transport offered to take the ISO containers from the wharf to its workplace, in the mistaken belief that the goods would be seen as being in transit, as opposed to being stored. It therefore reasoned that the usual measures around keeping dangerous substances and having the appropriate licence did not apply. Upon being made aware by Safework SA that this was not the case, Mr Musolino arranged for the containers to be removed to a licensed facility by 28 February 2023. TRG Transport no longer transports dangerous products to its workplace and now will only transport them directly to the customer's premises. TRG Transport is committed to ensuring that something like this does not happen again.
15. The Informant submitted that TRG Transport's offending is within the mid to high range of objective seriousness for offending of this type. It noted that there were no controls in place for prevention or containment of spills, no impact protection, no additional security to restrict access, no adequate emergency plan to manage the risks of storing the prescribed dangerous substances at the workplace, no adequate training of workers in the risks of storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin, and no engagement with the emergency services regarding storage of dichloropropene and chloropicrin. It submitted that there was a risk present for the entirety of the time that TRG Transport had stored at its premises prescribed dangerous substances in large volumes, without any controls in place to mitigate the potential for accidental release.
16. The Informant submitted that the penalties to be imposed on TRG Transport should be informed by the principles of general deterrence which loom large in the context of regulatory offending. It submitted that it is critical that those who provide a service which keeps, stores, conveys, transports and/or handles dangerous substances must have robust systems in place to ensure that they meet their obligations pursuant to the DS Act. It submitted that they also need to be acutely aware of and remain vigilant as to what is required to ensure compliance. The effect of its submission is that the penalties must be of amounts that bring home to such providers the importance of compliance. It added that albeit to a lesser degree, specific deterrence must also play a part, given that TRG Transport continues to provide transport and storage services.
17. The Informant submitted that the Court is also entitled to take into account the size and scope of TRG Transport's operations in recognition of the fact that that a fine which may be crippling to a small business may have virtually no impact on the financial operations of a large corporation.
18. The Informant acknowledged that TRG Transport entered guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. It accepted that the Court may reduce the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed by up to 40%. It added that TRG Transport was not entitled as of right to receive the maximum reduction available, but rather, the power to reduce must be exercised judicially. It noted that s 39(4) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (the Sentencing Act) sets out a list of relevant considerations in relation to the exercise of this discretion that the Court must have regard to (where applicable) and that in general terms, the correct approach is to consider the degree of contrition shown by the plea, the utilitarian benefits of the plea, and the defendant's conduct in light of the circumstances of the offending. It accepted that TRG Transport fully co-operated with the investigation and that it does not have any relevant prior history.
19. The Informant referred me to Hillman v Astec Paints Australasia Pty Ltd,[2] being a case involving sentence for offences under the DS Act decided by the predecessor of this Court, the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia. That case concerned a family owned paint manufacturer which was prosecuted following a serious workplace incident. An employee of Astec Paints Australasia Pty Ltd (Astec Paints) was engaged in creating a solvent-based solution, Rivett, through the mixing of various substances such as Toluene, Xylene and Deglan, when an electrostatic discharge caused the solution to ignite. The resulting fire caused burns to the employee's face and hands. It also resulted in the destruction of the premises in which Astec Paints operated out of, thereby causing it to suffer significant loss. Astec Paints was charged with offences under the DS Act of failing to ensure a safe working environment for its employees, and failing to hold a licence for storage of a prescribed dangerous substance on premises. It pleaded guilty on both counts.[3]
20. In passing sentence, Ardlie IM noted that Astec Paints had cooperated with the investigation. He accepted that it had demonstrated appropriate contrition and concern for its employees through its actions, with particular concern to the employee who sustained burns as a result of the fire.[4] He proceeded on the understanding that the new premises that Astec Paints constructed following the destruction of the former premises, went well beyond the relevant safety requirements of the applicable Australian Standard.[5] He noted that the required rebuild of the premises and temporary re-location of production would have likely caused Astec paints to have incurred a huge financial loss, therefore indicating that any fine imposed would significantly impact it.[6] After applying a 15% discount for the guilty pleas entered, which was the full extent of the discount available, he fined Astec Paints all up $46,236.25, including the Victim of Crimes Levy.[7]

1. The Court's approach to sentencing must be conducted with the principles espoused in the Sentencing Act firmly in mind. Section 3 of that Act provides that "the primary purpose for sentencing a defendant for an offence is to protect the safety of the community (whether as individuals or in general)." Section 4 sets out the secondary purposes. These relevantly include ensuring that the defendant is punished for the offending behaviour, is held accountable to the community for the offending behaviour, and promoting the defendant's rehabilitation. Other considerations include publicly denouncing the offending behaviour and publicly recognising the harm done to the community and to any victim of the offending behaviour. Section 10 requires a court to apply principles of proportionality, parity and totality. Section 11 relevantly requires the court to take into account the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offence, the extent of any injury, emotional harm, loss or damage resulting from the offence or any significant risk or danger created by the offence, the defendant's character, general background and offending history, the likelihood of the defendant re-offending, the extent of the defendant's remorse for the offence, and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation.
2. In dealing with all of these matters, the starting point is to identify the gravity or seriousness of the offence. An offence that directly offends, or undermines, the objectives of the legislative scheme creating the offence, is much more serious than one which only indirectly offends those objectives. Consideration needs to be given to the maximum penalties prescribed as they can be taken to reflect parliament's understanding of the public's view of the seriousness of the offence.[8] The maximum penalty also provides a point of reference. As the High Court explained in Markarian v R: [9]

...careful attention to maximum penalties will almost always be required, first because the legislature has legislated for them; secondly, because they invite comparison between the worst possible case and the case before the court at the time; and thirdly, because in that regard they do provide, taken and balanced with all of the other relevant factors, a yardstick.[10]

1. Because these offences concern public and environmental safety, consideration must be given to the foreseeable risk of harm to the public and to the environment by commission of the offences.[11] This in turn requires a consideration of the likelihood of the risk materialising, and the consequences that would flow if that risk materialised.
2. Next, the offender's state of mind and the reasons for the offending must be considered. Was it deliberate or inadvertent? If deliberate, was it motivated by a sense of necessity, reckless indifference, contumacious defiance, or a calculated decision to save money? If inadvertent, was the ignorance or mistake understandable, or is it the case that the offender should have known better?
3. Issues of general and personal deterrence also need to be considered. So too do aggravating and mitigating factors.
4. Finally, having reached a view as to the appropriate sentence, the potential discount on account of an early plea must be considered, noting that although not automatic,[12] the general expectation is that the discount allowed by the Sentencing Act for an early plea will apply.[13]

1. The DS Act is plainly intended to afford the public and the environment, protection from the harmful impact of dangerous substances. Section 11 of the DS Act plays an important role in achieving this, by imposing obligations upon those who keep, handle, convey, use or dispose of dangerous substances, or who transport dangerous goods, and by creating an offence punishing those who do not meet those obligations. An offence under s11 of the DS Act directly offends, and undermines the objectives of that Act. The maximum penalty for the offence under s 11 of the DS Act by a body corporate is $250,000. An offence by an individual carries with it a maximum two year term of imprisonment. These are heavy penalties. For all of these reasons, an offence under s 11 of the DS Act must be viewed objectively as a very serious offence.
2. Section 15 of the DS Act enables the relevant licence issuing authority to exercise control measures in respect of dangerous substances by empowering it to impose conditions upon a licence limiting the dangerous substances that can be kept and specifying the premises where they can be kept. Section 14 fortifies this power by making it an offence not to have the requisite licence. An offence under s 14 of the DS Act therefore offends and undermines the objectives of that Act, albeit in a less direct way than s 11 of the DS Act. The maximum penalty for the offence under s 14 of the DS Act by a body corporate is $50,000. An offence by an individual carries with it a maximum one year term of imprisonment. Whilst it is plainly a less serious offence that an offence under s 11, an offence under s 14 of the DS Act must be viewed objectively as a serious offence.

1. Whilst the risk of harm did not materialise, the inference to be drawn for the expert evidence adduced, and the admitted particulars, is that although the likelihood of it materialising was relatively small, had the risk materialised, there could have been significant damage to persons and to the environment.

TRG's Transport's State of Mind and the reasons for the offending

1. I treat Mr Musolino as the directing mind and will of TRG Transport.[14] I accept his evidence that he did not appreciate that TRG Transport needed the appropriate licence or that it was obliged to take special precautions when storing the ISO containers. Based on his evidence, I regard the mental element relevant to the offending as well short of reckless indifference and somewhere between naivety and carelessness. I approach the task of sentencing in this case from the premise that in connection with both offences this was not a flagrant or deliberate breach of the relevant provisions. The offending was not motivated by greed. It occurred because Mr Musolino and TRG Transport wanted to assist a commercial partner and they were ignorant of their legal obligations and erroneously believed that they were not "keeping" dangerous substances.

1. In respect of both offences, the need for general deterrence is important. As was held in Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority: "[t]hose who handle dangerous chemicals must be regarded as under a heavy obligation to the rest of the community to do so with the utmost care."[15] The sentence of this Court must send a powerful message to those who are involved in the keeping, handling, conveying, using or disposing of a dangerous substance, or in transporting dangerous goods, that the obligation to take appropriate precautions and exercise reasonable care so as to avoid endangering the health or safety of any person, or the safety of property and to prevent the risk of environmental harm, is not negotiable, as is the obligation to be licensed, should the circumstances require it. This warrants substantial fines in recognition of the fact that nominal fines will not deter others from committing these types of offences.[16]

1. In respect of both offences, the need for personal deterrence is less significant. I am confident that this has been a salutary lesson to Mr Musolino and TRG Transport. I am comfortably satisfied that Mr Musolino and TRG Transport experience genuine remorse. Mr Musolino has had to endure the humiliation of being brought to account by officers from Safework SA. To his credit, he appears to have accepted this with good grace and provided the unqualified acknowledgement that he, and his company, did the wrong thing. In connection with both offences, it is appropriate to record convictions. Mr Musolino must therefore now live with the fact that his company's previously unblemished record has come to an end. I am confident that this will play heavily on his mind, and that he and TRG Transport will be vigilant in the future to ensure that appropriate safety standards are maintained.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Sentencing

1. My finding that the mental element relevant to the offending is somewhere between naivety and carelessness, is in the circumstances of this case an aggravating factor. Mr Musolino has been involved in the transport business for the best part of 40 years. TRG Transport has been transporting goods for Trical for 10 years or so. It is reasonable to infer that over this period this often involved the transportation of dangerous substances. It is therefore disturbing that Mr Musolino and TRG Transport were ignorant of the obligations that come with dealing with such substances.
2. In this case, a significant mitigating factor is that in the best part of 40 years of trading in the transport business Mr Musolino has never come to the attention of Safework SA. Mr Musolino and his company are also to be given considerable credit for their co-operation with Safework SA, their immediate ownership of their wrongdoing, and their commitment towards future compliance.
3. The size of TRG Transport is not a relevant factor. It is neither a small business that would be crushed by substantial fines, nor is it a large corporation that will not be impacted by such fines.

1. The determination of the fines to be imposed in this case involve an instinctive synthesis of the objective and subjective circumstances of the offences and TRG Transport.[17]
2. In summary, objectively, the offence under s 11 of the DS Act is a very serious offence. The offence under s 14 of the DS Act is a less serious offence. In this case, the offences were not flagrant or motivated by greed, but occurred because of a lack of knowledge as to the applicable legal obligations occasioned by naivety or carelessness, albeit that in the context of a company that might be expected to have regularly transported dangerous substances, that naivety or carelessness is disturbing. The environmental and personal harm that could have occurred because of the s 11 offence may have been significant, such that this must be seen as serious offending. In all the circumstances, on the scale of seriousness, I regard both offences as somewhere between the lower and middle end of the range. In respect of both offences, general deterrence looms large. Personal deterrence is not a significant factor. TRG Transport is entitled to considerable credit for is prior good record, its co-operation with Safework SA, its genuine remorse, and its commitment to future compliance. It is entitled to a discount on account of its early pleas.
3. I have considered Hillman v Astec Paints Australasia Pty Ltd. Whilst it goes without saying that each case must be decided on its own facts, it provides a useful point of reference.
4. With these matters in mind I order as follows:
   1. In respect of the offence under s 11 of the DS Act, but for TRG Transport's early plea, in addition to the conviction, I would have imposed a penalty of $70,000. Having regard to s 39(4) of the Sentencing Act 2017, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to apply the full discount that the early plea permits. I therefore reduce the notional penalty to a $42,000 fine. Thus in respect of the offence under s 11 of the DS Act, TRG Transport is convicted and fined $42,000.
   2. In respect of the offence under s 14 of the DS Act, although it is plainly a separate offence, there is a sense of double jeopardy in play, in that the offence arises out of the same set of circumstances that led to the s 11 offence, and I take this into account. But for TRG Transport's early plea, in addition to the conviction, I would have imposed a penalty of $8,000. Again, having regard to s 39(4) of the Sentencing Act 2017, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to apply the full discount that the early plea permits. I therefore reduce the notional penalty to a $5,600 fine. Thus in respect of the offence under s 14 of the DS Act, TRG Transport is convicted and fined $5,600.
   3. I direct TRG Transport to pay the costs of the prosecution fixed at $1,210.
   4. I direct TRG Transport to pay the Victims of Crime Levy of $424.

[1] Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) LGERA 234 at [18].

[2] [2012] SAIRC 12.

[8] Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ptd v Environmental Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 at 98 per Kirby P.

[9] [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357.

[11] Plath v Rawson [2009] NSWLEC 178; (2009) 170 LGERA 253.

[12] R v Bahrami [2020] SASCFC 111.

[13] R v Dwyer (2015) 121 SASR 587.

[14] Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1; [1972] AC 153, at 170

[15] (1993) 113 LGERA 357 at 367.

[16] Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd Ibid at [140] per Preston CJ.

[17] Markarian v The Queen at [37], [39, [66] and [73].