BALLINA SHIRE COUNCIL v. DAVFAST PTY LIMITED [1998] NSWLEC 21

BALLINA SHIRE COUNCIL v. DAVFAST PTY LIMITED [1998] NSWLEC 21

The defendant committed the offence because, while on notice that development consent was required for works in the environmentally sensitive Zone 7(f), it deliberately carried out works involving substantial roadworks, alteration of land surface and clearing of native vegetation without Council consent or departmental concurrence. The offence under s 76 was strict liability, the elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the seriousness of the deliberate conduct warranted conviction, a $30,000 fine, costs and consideration of remediation, reduced to reflect the early guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Prosecution for Development Without Consent Under S 76 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 / Penalty, Costs and Remediation Following Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted of the offence charged; fined $30,000; ordered to pay the prosecutor's just and reasonable costs; final remediation orders deferred and matter stood over for mention.
Legal Topics
['development Without Consent' 'environmental Protection Coastal Lands Zone' 'strict Liability Environmental Offence' 'clearing Vegetation and Altering Land Surface' 'remediation Order' 'sentencing and Costs']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Law'] ['development Without Consent' 'environmental Protection Coastal Lands Zone' 'strict Liability Environmental Offence' 'clearing Vegetation and Altering Land Surface' 'remediation Order' 'sentencing and Costs']

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 Prosecution for Development Without Consent Under S 76 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 / Penalty, Costs and Remediation Following Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant carried out or aided and abetted development on land within Zone 7(f) without development consent contrary to s 76 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether the works included cutting down, topping, lopping or otherwise destroying trees, and clearing, filling or otherwise altering the surface level of land without Council consent.' "What penalty, costs order and remediation order were appropriate after the defendant's guilty plea."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant committed the offence because, while on notice that development consent was required for works in the environmentally sensitive Zone 7(f), it deliberately carried out works involving substantial roadworks, alteration of land surface and clearing of native vegetation without Council consent or departmental concurrence. The offence under s 76 was strict liability, the elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the seriousness of the deliberate conduct warranted conviction, a $30,000 fine, costs and consideration of remediation, reduced to reflect the early guilty plea.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted of the offence charged; fined $30,000; ordered to pay the prosecutor's just and reasonable costs; final remediation orders deferred and matter stood over for mention.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence charged in the summons.' 'The defendant is fined $30,000.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay the just and reasonable costs of the prosecutor.' 'Leave is granted to the parties to explore possible agreement upon an appropriate form of remediation order for the Court to...