Environment Protection Authority v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 223

Environment Protection Authority v Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 223

Although no actual environmental harm was established and the leak was virtually unforeseeable unless a building assessment had revealed the tank, the defendant managed and was in control of the building and ought to have carried out a comprehensive investigation which would have revealed the manhole or the heating plan showing the tank. The defendant was therefore responsible for the offence, but its early guilty plea, cooperation, contrition, absence of gross negligence or disregard of environmental legislation, and the absence of established harm warranted a relatively small fine.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Environmental Prosecution for Water Pollution Offence / Penalty Assessment Following Guilty Plea
Outcome
The defendant was convicted, fined $15,000, ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs assessed by agreement at $9000, and the exhibits were ordered to be returned.
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'diesel Oil Leak' 'stormwater Discharge' 'environmental Sentencing' 'guilty Plea']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['water Pollution' 'diesel Oil Leak' 'stormwater Discharge' 'environmental Sentencing' 'guilty Plea']

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

Environmental Prosecution for Water Pollution Offence / Penalty Assessment Following Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant polluted waters contrary to s 16(1) of the Clean Waters Act 1970.' 'What penalty should be imposed for the discharge of diesel oil from a redundant basement furnace tank into waters leading to Careening Cove.' 'Whether harm to the environment was caused or likely to be caused by the offence.' 'Whether practical measures could have been taken to prevent, mitigate or control the harm.' 'Whether environmental harm was reasonably foreseeable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although no actual environmental harm was established and the leak was virtually unforeseeable unless a building assessment had revealed the tank, the defendant managed and was in control of the building and ought to have carried out a comprehensive investigation which would have revealed the manhole or the heating plan showing the tank. The defendant was therefore responsible for the offence, but its early guilty plea, cooperation, contrition, absence of gross negligence or disregard of environmental legislation, and the absence of established harm warranted a relatively small fine.

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted, fined $15,000, ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs assessed by agreement at $9000, and the exhibits were ordered to be returned.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'The defendant is fined the sum of $15,000.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs assessed by agreement in the sum of $9000." 'The exhibits may be returned.']