Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 7) [2015] NSWLEC 79

Leichhardt Council v Geitonia Pty Ltd (No 7) [2015] NSWLEC 79

The offence of demolishing the southern façade contrary to the requirement of development consent was of medium objective seriousness, caused substantial environmental harm and undermined the regulatory system. Mr Gertos was the guiding mind. Sentences must reflect deterrence and avoid double punishment. Fines are imposed on each defendant, with costs apportioned taking into account the relationship between Mr Gertos and Geitonia.

Parties
Prosecutor: Leichhardt Council; Defendant: Geitonia Pty Limited; Defendant: GRC Projects Pty Ltd (in liq); Defendant: Bill Gertos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Post Conviction Sentencing
Outcome
Defendants fined; prosecutor's costs apportioned; exhibits to be returned.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Heritage Protection, Development Consent, Corporate Liability, Avoidance of Double Punishment
Environmental Law Criminal Law Planning Law Sentencing Heritage Protection Development Consent Corporate Liability Avoidance of Double Punishment

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 4 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leichhardt Council

Prosecutor

Geitonia Pty Limited

Defendant

GRC Projects Pty Ltd (in liq)

Defendant

Bill Gertos

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Post Conviction Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentencing for breach of development consent
  2. 2 Objective seriousness and subjective circumstances of environmental offence
  3. 3 Principle of avoidance of double punishment between individual and company

Ratio Decidendi

The offence of demolishing the southern façade contrary to the requirement of development consent was of medium objective seriousness, caused substantial environmental harm and undermined the regulatory system. Mr Gertos was the guiding mind. Sentences must reflect deterrence and avoid double punishment. Fines are imposed on each defendant, with costs apportioned taking into account the relationship between Mr Gertos and Geitonia.

Court Disposition

Defendants fined; prosecutor's costs apportioned; exhibits to be returned.

Orders

  • Geitonia Pty Limited fined $50,000; pay one third prosecutor's costs prior to 23 February 2015 (except notice of motion costs), pay 25% of prosecutor's costs from 23 February 2015; exhibits returned.
  • GRC Projects Pty Ltd (in liq) fined $50,000; pay prosecutor's notice of motion costs, one third other costs prior to 23 February 2015, 10% of costs from 23 February 2015; exhibits returned.