Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Mackenzie (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 210

Environment Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Mackenzie (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 210

The defendants incurred additional costs because three adjournments were necessitated by the state of the EPA's draft stated cases. The first two drafts were completely unsuitable, unreasonably lengthy and not in an appropriate form, and the third continued to attract substantial criticism. The adjournments arose from unreasonable behaviour and/or unreasonable delay by the Prosecutor, satisfying s 257F of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The defendants were therefore entitled to costs of the mentions on 26 July 2018, 24 August 2018 and 4 December 2018.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings; Costs Application Concerning Adjournments in Preparation of a Stated Case / After the Defendants Were Found Not Guilty in Grafil (no 1), During Preparation of a Stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Costs order made in favour of the Defendants.
Legal Topics
['costs on Adjournment' 'stated Case' 'summary Jurisdiction' 'waste Offences']
['criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law' 'costs'] ['costs on Adjournment' 'stated Case' 'summary Jurisdiction' 'waste 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 5 Criminal Proceedings; Costs Application Concerning Adjournments in Preparation of a Stated Case / After the Defendants Were Found Not Guilty in Grafil (no 1), During Preparation of a Stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants incurred additional costs because the matter was adjourned within the meaning of s 257F of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether the additional costs were incurred because of unreasonable conduct or delays by the Prosecutor in preparing draft stated cases.' 'Whether costs should be ordered for the mentions on 26 July 2018, 24 August 2018 and 4 December 2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants incurred additional costs because three adjournments were necessitated by the state of the EPA's draft stated cases. The first two drafts were completely unsuitable, unreasonably lengthy and not in an appropriate form, and the third continued to attract substantial criticism. The adjournments arose from unreasonable behaviour and/or unreasonable delay by the Prosecutor, satisfying s 257F of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The defendants were therefore entitled to costs of the mentions on 26 July 2018, 24 August 2018 and 4 December 2018.

Court Disposition

Costs order made in favour of the Defendants.

Orders

  • ["The Prosecutor is to pay the Defendants' costs of the mentions on 26 July 2018, 24 August 2018 and 4 December 2018 pursuant to s 257F of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986."]