Environment Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCCA 204

Environment Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCCA 204

The particulars provided by the EPA went beyond a single course of conduct and instead alleged multiple separate and discrete contraventions (failures in both storage and treatment activities, at different times and places) under a single charge; thus, the summons was duplicitous under longstanding common law and statutory principles. Additionally, s 68 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 does not confer an independent power to order interlocutory costs in criminal (Class 5/summary) proceedings; the power to award costs arises only in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act, so the order for costs against the EPA was not lawfully made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (interlocutory) / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['duplicity in Charges' 'summary Jurisdiction Procedure' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'contravention of Environmental Licence Conditions' 'particularisation of Charges']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'civil Procedure'] ['duplicity in Charges' 'summary Jurisdiction Procedure' 'costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'contravention of Environmental Licence Conditions' 'particularisation of Charges']

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 (interlocutory) / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons was bad for duplicity as it alleged multiple offences in a single charge' 'Whether the Land and Environment Court had power to order interlocutory costs in summary jurisdiction under s 68 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars provided by the EPA went beyond a single course of conduct and instead alleged multiple separate and discrete contraventions (failures in both storage and treatment activities, at different times and places) under a single charge; thus, the summons was duplicitous under longstanding common law and statutory principles. Additionally, s 68 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 does not confer an independent power to order interlocutory costs in criminal (Class 5/summary) proceedings; the power to award costs arises only in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act, so the order for costs against the EPA was not lawfully made.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted and appeal allowed in part.' 'Set aside the order for costs, being order 2, made on 18 April 2012.' 'Otherwise dismiss the appeal.']