Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2020] NSWLEC 106

Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2020] NSWLEC 106

The manufacture of pet food at Hypro's premises is not the scheduled activity of 'general animal products production' under cl 23(1) of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act because the raw materials used (such as tallow and rendered meat meals) are not directly derived from the act of slaughtering animals, but from further processing activities. The activity at Hypro's premises does not involve the required direct connection with 'products derived from the slaughter of animals.'

Parties
Applicant: Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Environment Protection Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Declaration Proceedings (class 4) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted (in part), costs reserved
Legal Topics
Environment Protection Licence, Scheduled Activity, Pet Food Manufacture, General Animal Products Production, Interpretation of Legislation
Environment and Planning Environment Protection Licence Scheduled Activity Pet Food Manufacture General Animal Products Production Interpretation of Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hypro (Aust) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Environment Protection Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaration Proceedings (class 4) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manufacture of pet food at the applicant's premises constitutes 'general animal products production' or any other scheduled activity under cl 23 of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether an environment protection licence is required for the activity carried on by Hypro

Ratio Decidendi

The manufacture of pet food at Hypro's premises is not the scheduled activity of 'general animal products production' under cl 23(1) of Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the POEO Act because the raw materials used (such as tallow and rendered meat meals) are not directly derived from the act of slaughtering animals, but from further processing activities. The activity at Hypro's premises does not involve the required direct connection with 'products derived from the slaughter of animals.'

Court Disposition

Declaration granted (in part), costs reserved

Orders

  • Declares that the development carried out at 15 Box Avenue, Wilberforce in accordance with development consent DA0580/15 for the operation of a pet food manufacturing facility is not the activity of 'general animal products production' or any of the other activities referred to in cl 23 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to...
  • Reserves the question of the costs of the proceedings.