Farrell v Dayban Pty Limited [1989] NSWLEC 204

Farrell v Dayban Pty Limited [1989] NSWLEC 204

The application failed because the Court had no jurisdiction, either under s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act or under its implied power to prevent abuse of process, to make an order in criminal proceedings freezing Dayban's general assets for the purpose of securing a fund to pay possible fines and costs if convictions were later entered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 1989
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings Under the Waste Disposal Act 1970 / Application for Orders in the Nature of Mareva Injunctions
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['waste Disposal Offences' 'mareva Injunction' 'freezing Assets to Secure Possible Fines and Costs' 'standing of Authorised Officers of Statutory Authorities' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['waste Disposal Offences' 'mareva Injunction' 'freezing Assets to Secure Possible Fines and Costs' 'standing of Authorised Officers of Statutory Authorities' 'land and Environment Court Jurisdiction' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings']

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 Criminal Proceedings Under the Waste Disposal Act 1970 / Application for Orders in the Nature of Mareva Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Land and Environment Court had jurisdiction in criminal proceedings to make orders in the nature of Mareva injunctions freezing Dayban Pty Limited's general assets to secure payment of possible fines and costs if convicted." 'Whether an authorised officer of the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority had standing to seek civil relief to enforce environmental laws administered by the Authority.' 'Whether, if jurisdiction existed, the Court should exercise discretion to restrain Dayban from disposing of its assets.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Court had no jurisdiction, either under s 23 of the Land and Environment Court Act or under its implied power to prevent abuse of process, to make an order in criminal proceedings freezing Dayban's general assets for the purpose of securing a fund to pay possible fines and costs if convictions were later entered.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs."]