Farrell v Alkair Limited [1989] NSWLEC 209

Farrell v Alkair Limited [1989] NSWLEC 209

Alkair Limited pleaded guilty to four offences involving the occupation of unlicensed premises used for storing large amounts of builders' waste. Although the company had no prior convictions and had taken management steps to avoid future breaches, the offences were serious, involved multiple unsightly sites, and the Canterbury premises continued to be used after an indication that use would cease. Fines of $1,000 for each of the first three offences and $3,000 for the later Canterbury offence were appropriate, together with agreed prosecutor's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1989
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Under S.22(1) of the Waste Disposal Act, 1970 / Guilty Plea and Sentencing
Outcome
The defendant was convicted of each offence and fined a total of $6,000, with an order to pay the prosecutor's costs of $2,768.
Legal Topics
['occupying a Depot Without a Certificate of Registration' 'storage of Waste at Unlicensed Premises' 'sentencing for Waste Disposal Act Offences']
['environmental Law' 'waste Disposal' 'criminal Penalties'] ['occupying a Depot Without a Certificate of Registration' 'storage of Waste at Unlicensed Premises' 'sentencing for Waste Disposal Act Offences']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for Offences Under S.22(1) of the Waste Disposal Act, 1970 / Guilty Plea and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Alkair Limited committed four offences under s.22(1) of the Waste Disposal Act, 1970 by occupying depots not the subject of a Certificate of Registration.' 'What penalties should be imposed for the four offences, taking into account the circumstances and mitigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Alkair Limited pleaded guilty to four offences involving the occupation of unlicensed premises used for storing large amounts of builders' waste. Although the company had no prior convictions and had taken management steps to avoid future breaches, the offences were serious, involved multiple unsightly sites, and the Canterbury premises continued to be used after an indication that use would cease. Fines of $1,000 for each of the first three offences and $3,000 for the later Canterbury offence were appropriate, together with agreed prosecutor's costs.

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted of each offence and fined a total of $6,000, with an order to pay the prosecutor's costs of $2,768.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of each of the offences charged under the Waste Disposal Act.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 in respect of each of the offences 50033/89, 50034/89 and 50035/89.' 'The defendant is further ordered to pay a penalty of $3,000.00 in respect of the offence 50071/89.'...