Environment Protection Authority v Cleanaway Equipment Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWLEC 40
Cleanaway Equipment Services Pty Ltd was sentenced for three offences: causing water pollution on 14 May 2020 and 15 May 2020, and failing to immediately notify authorities of a notifiable pollution incident, all contrary to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). Charges 1 and 3 involved significant discharges of solvent resulting in actual and potential harm to water and the aquatic ecosystem. Charge 2 involved a delay of approximately four hours in notification. The objective seriousness for Charges 1 and 3 was mid-range of medium, while Charge 2 was low range. The defendant's plea of guilty, contrition, co-operation, and remedial measures, as well as lack of prior...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence / Judgment
- Outcome
- Defendant convicted on all charges and fined; orders for costs and publication made.
- Legal Topics
- ['water Pollution' 'pollution Incident Notification' 'sentencing – Environmental Offences' 'corporate Liability' 'environmental Harm' 'remediation' 'failure to Notify' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What is the appropriate sentence for Cleanaway Equipment Services Pty Ltd for water pollution and failure to notify authorities under the POEO Act?' "To what degree did the defendant's conduct cause actual and potential environmental harm?" 'What objective and subjective factors aggravate or mitigate the penalty?']
Ratio Decidendi
Cleanaway Equipment Services Pty Ltd was sentenced for three offences: causing water pollution on 14 May 2020 and 15 May 2020, and failing to immediately notify authorities of a notifiable pollution incident, all contrary to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). Charges 1 and 3 involved significant discharges of solvent resulting in actual and potential harm to water and the aquatic ecosystem. Charge 2 involved a delay of approximately four hours in notification. The objective seriousness for Charges 1 and 3 was mid-range of medium, while Charge 2 was low range. The defendant's plea of guilty, contrition, co-operation, and remedial measures, as well as lack of prior...
Court Disposition
Defendant convicted on all charges and fined; orders for costs and publication made.
Orders
- ['Defendant convicted for offence against s 152 of the POEO Act (Charge 2) – fined $187,500.' 'Defendant convicted for offence against s 120(1) of the POEO Act (Charge 1) – fined $280,000.' 'Defendant convicted for offence against s 120(1) of the POEO Act (Charge 3) – fined $150,000.' "Defendant to pay Prosecutor's...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment