Slade v Kempsey Shire Council [2018] NSWCA 25
The Council's entitlement to recover clean-up costs under s 105 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) was not dependent on compliance with every requirement of the EPA’s clean-up notice under s 92(1); action taken under s 92(2) was adequate to substantiate the debt, and procedural arguments about the qualifications of the expert report could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['clean Up Notices' 'statutory Debts' 'public Authority Powers' 'appeals Procedure']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the respondent Council's right to recover clean-up costs from the appellants under s 105 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) was conditional on compliance with the EPA's clean-up notice to it" 'Whether alleged non-compliance with a requirement for an asbestos assessment report prepared by a qualified hygienist affected recovery rights' 'Whether arguments not raised at first instance could be raised on appeal']
Ratio Decidendi
The Council's entitlement to recover clean-up costs under s 105 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) was not dependent on compliance with every requirement of the EPA’s clean-up notice under s 92(1); action taken under s 92(2) was adequate to substantiate the debt, and procedural arguments about the qualifications of the expert report could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment