Roads and Maritime Services v East Coast Wharf Constructions Pty Ltd; Roads and Maritime Services v King [2018] NSWLEC 182

Roads and Maritime Services v East Coast Wharf Constructions Pty Ltd; Roads and Maritime Services v King [2018] NSWLEC 182

The Court granted leave under s 219(1A) because Roads and Maritime Services was an appropriate regulatory authority for the alleged non-scheduled activities involving non-pilotage vessels in navigable waters, none of the cl 86 exclusions applied, the EPA had been notified and had decided not to take relevant action, the proposed proceedings were not an abuse of process, and the proposed summonses and supporting affidavit material disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 5 / Notices of Motion Seeking Leave to Institute Criminal Proceedings Under S 219(1 A), or Alternatively S 219(1), of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Outcome
Leave granted to Roads and Maritime Services under s 219(1A) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to institute proceedings against East Coast Wharf Constructions Pty Ltd and Benjamin Peter King for the alleged offences.
Legal Topics
['leave to Institute Prosecution' 'appropriate Regulatory Authority' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Offences' 'waste Transport, Storage and Disposal' 'prima Facie Case' 'abuse of Process']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Institute Prosecution' 'appropriate Regulatory Authority' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Offences' 'waste Transport, Storage and Disposal' 'prima Facie Case' 'abuse of Process']

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 / Notices of Motion Seeking Leave to Institute Criminal Proceedings Under S 219(1 A), or Alternatively S 219(1), of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Roads and Maritime Services was an appropriate regulatory authority for the alleged offences and could be granted leave under s 219(1A) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.' 'Whether the preconditions in s 219(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 were satisfied, including EPA inaction, notification to the EPA, absence of abuse of process, and disclosure of a prima facie case.' 'Whether leave should alternatively be granted under s 219(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted leave under s 219(1A) because Roads and Maritime Services was an appropriate regulatory authority for the alleged non-scheduled activities involving non-pilotage vessels in navigable waters, none of the cl 86 exclusions applied, the EPA had been notified and had decided not to take relevant action, the proposed proceedings were not an abuse of process, and the proposed summonses and supporting affidavit material disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to Roads and Maritime Services under s 219(1A) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to institute proceedings against East Coast Wharf Constructions Pty Ltd and Benjamin Peter King for the alleged offences.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to Roads and Maritime Services under s 219(1A) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to institute proceedings in the Court against East Coast Wharf Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 113 385 443) for offences against ss 143(1), 144(1) and 115(1) of the Act.' 'Leave be granted to Roads...