Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Burton Contractors Pty Ltd T/as Burton Civil Engineering Contractors [2020] NSWLEC 52

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Burton Contractors Pty Ltd T/as Burton Civil Engineering Contractors [2020] NSWLEC 52

The Summonses against both Defendants were found to be patently and latently duplicitous because they sought to aggregate multiple, discrete acts and omissions—separated by location and character—into a single charge, rather than identifying and charging each as a separate offence. Furthermore, the alleged breaches were insufficiently particularised and the list of allegations was not closed, rendering the charges uncertain. Accordingly, the Summonses were defective but the proceedings were adjourned to allow the Prosecutor to consider amending them.

Parties
Prosecutor: Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment; Defendant: Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd; Defendant: Burton Contractors Pty Ltd T/as Burton Civil Engineering Contractors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings (class 5) / Interlocutory Motions to Quash, Set Aside, or Permanently Stay Summonses
Outcome
Adjourned to allow Prosecutor to consider amendment of Summonses in light of findings of patent and latent duplicity; Summonses not dismissed or permanently stayed at this stage.
Legal Topics
Duplicity in Charges, Development Consent Conditions, Erosion and Sediment Control, Particularisation of Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Procedure Duplicity in Charges Development Consent Conditions Erosion and Sediment Control Particularisation of 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment

Prosecutor

Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd

Defendant

Burton Contractors Pty Ltd T/as Burton Civil Engineering Contractors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings (class 5) / Interlocutory Motions to Quash, Set Aside, or Permanently Stay Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Summonses are patently or latently duplicitous by charging more than one offence in a single count under s 125(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether particulars of breaches of Condition E25 and the Blue Book requirements are sufficient to identify the offence
  3. 3 Whether the Summonses lack specificity or certainty in identifying location and factual foundation

Ratio Decidendi

The Summonses against both Defendants were found to be patently and latently duplicitous because they sought to aggregate multiple, discrete acts and omissions—separated by location and character—into a single charge, rather than identifying and charging each as a separate offence. Furthermore, the alleged breaches were insufficiently particularised and the list of allegations was not closed, rendering the charges uncertain. Accordingly, the Summonses were defective but the proceedings were adjourned to allow the Prosecutor to consider amending them.

Court Disposition

Adjourned to allow Prosecutor to consider amendment of Summonses in light of findings of patent and latent duplicity; Summonses not dismissed or permanently stayed at this stage.

Orders

  • Matters adjourned for mention by telephone before Moore J on 10 June 2020 at 9:00 am
  • Opportunity granted to Prosecutor to seek leave to amend Summonses