Environment Protection Authority v Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 84

Environment Protection Authority v Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 84

The defendant was guilty of causing waters to be polluted when inadequate erosion and sediment controls on the Eastern Gas Pipeline easement failed during a rain event, washing about 150 tonnes of sediment into Kembla Creek and some sediment into Lake Cordeaux. The harm or likely harm was significant and foreseeable, and practical measures could have controlled or mitigated it. Although contractors and sub-contractors carried out the physical work, the defendant retained ultimate and indirect control and accepted responsibility. Taking into account the guilty plea, cooperation, lack of direct physical involvement, environmental expenditure and other mitigating matters, the appropriate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Causing Waters to Be Polluted Contrary to S 120(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted and fined $25,000, with costs payable to the prosecutor.
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'erosion and Sediment Controls' 'environmental Management Plan Compliance' 'corporate Liability' 'sentencing for Environmental Offences' 'guilty Plea Mitigation']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['water Pollution' 'erosion and Sediment Controls' 'environmental Management Plan Compliance' 'corporate Liability' 'sentencing for Environmental Offences' 'guilty Plea Mitigation']

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

Prosecution for Causing Waters to Be Polluted Contrary to S 120(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on the defendant after its guilty plea to causing waters to be polluted contrary to s 120(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.' 'The extent of harm caused or likely to be caused to Kembla Creek and Lake Cordeaux by sediment runoff from the Eastern Gas Pipeline easement.' 'Whether practical measures could have prevented, controlled, abated or mitigated the environmental harm.' 'Whether the harm or likely harm was foreseeable to the defendant.' 'The extent to which the defendant had control over the causes leading to the offence despite contractors and sub-contractors carrying out the physical work.' "What mitigation should be allowed for the defendant's guilty plea, cooperation, environmental expenditure and lack of direct physical involvement in the breach."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was guilty of causing waters to be polluted when inadequate erosion and sediment controls on the Eastern Gas Pipeline easement failed during a rain event, washing about 150 tonnes of sediment into Kembla Creek and some sediment into Lake Cordeaux. The harm or likely harm was significant and foreseeable, and practical measures could have controlled or mitigated it. Although contractors and sub-contractors carried out the physical work, the defendant retained ultimate and indirect control and accepted responsibility. Taking into account the guilty plea, cooperation, lack of direct physical involvement, environmental expenditure and other mitigating matters, the appropriate...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined $25,000, with costs payable to the prosecutor.

Orders

  • ['The defendant be convicted of the offence as charged.' 'A fine of $25,000.00 be imposed in respect of such offence, such fine to be payable at the expiration of 28 days.' "The defendant pay the prosecutor's costs." 'Exhibits be returned.']