Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Mackenzie (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 202

Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Mackenzie (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 202

The Environment Protection Authority, as the successful party in the proceedings on stated questions under s 5AE, should be awarded its costs, consistent with the purpose of compensating the successful party and not punishing the unsuccessful party; the outcome of the proceedings provides a sufficient basis for the discretion to be exercised in favour of the EPA.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Costs Determination Following S 5 AE Questions
Outcome
Costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
['costs in Appeal Proceedings' 'exercise of Costs Discretion Under S 5 AE Criminal Appeal Act']
['criminal Law'] ['costs in Appeal Proceedings' 'exercise of Costs Discretion Under S 5 AE Criminal Appeal Act']

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

Criminal Appeal / Costs Determination Following S 5 AE Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to the successful appellant (Environment Protection Authority) under s 5AE(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 in stated case proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Protection Authority, as the successful party in the proceedings on stated questions under s 5AE, should be awarded its costs, consistent with the purpose of compensating the successful party and not punishing the unsuccessful party; the outcome of the proceedings provides a sufficient basis for the discretion to be exercised in favour of the EPA.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • ['The respondents, Grafil Pty Ltd and Mr Mackenzie, are to pay the costs of the appellant, the Environment Protection Authority, of the proceedings in this Court.']