Environment Protection Authority v Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd; Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 98

Environment Protection Authority v Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd; Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWLEC 98

It was appropriate to vary Order 4 in each matter because further information had revised the estimated costs of the projects, the existing allocations did not reflect the specific requirements of each project, the proposed reallocations were agreed between the parties, and the variations did not change the total penalty amounts payable by Clarence Colliery.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Proceedings; Consequential Orders in Sentencing / Application to Vary Allocation of Monetary Penalties Payable Under Environmental Sentencing Orders
Outcome
Order 4 in each proceeding was varied to amend the allocation of monetary penalty funds among specified projects.
Legal Topics
['variation of Orders' 'allocation of Monetary Penalties' 'environmental Restoration or Enhancement Projects' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) S 250']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['variation of Orders' 'allocation of Monetary Penalties' 'environmental Restoration or Enhancement Projects' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) S 250']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 5 Proceedings; Consequential Orders in Sentencing / Application to Vary Allocation of Monetary Penalties Payable Under Environmental Sentencing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 4 made on 14 July 2017 in each proceeding should be varied to reallocate monetary penalty funds among agreed environmental projects without changing the total penalties payable.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to vary Order 4 in each matter because further information had revised the estimated costs of the projects, the existing allocations did not reflect the specific requirements of each project, the proposed reallocations were agreed between the parties, and the variations did not change the total penalty amounts payable by Clarence Colliery.

Court Disposition

Order 4 in each proceeding was varied to amend the allocation of monetary penalty funds among specified projects.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 2016/00154310, the allocation of funds in Order 4 made 14 July 2017 by Justice Robson in matter number 2016/00154310 be amended.' 'Clarence Colliery, pursuant to s 250(1)(e) of the POEO Act, is to pay $505,000 to the Office of Environment and Heritage for the "Stabilisation of walking tracks in the...