ADI Limited v Environment Protection Authority; Environment Protection Authority v ADI Limited [2000] NSWCCA 333

ADI Limited v Environment Protection Authority; Environment Protection Authority v ADI Limited [2000] NSWCCA 333

The burden of proving compliance with licence conditions under s.16(6) of the Clean Waters Act 1970 lies with the defendant, not the prosecution. ADI Limited failed to discharge this onus because evidence showed the discharge contained non-filtrable residue well above the allowed limit. The sampling evidence was found reliable. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the penalty, though low, was not manifestly inadequate to justify appellate interference.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: ADI Limited; Respondent/appellant: Environment Protection Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Land and Environment Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pollution, Licensing Offences, Sentencing in Environmental Offences, Burden of Proof in Statutory Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law Pollution Licensing Offences Sentencing in Environmental Offences Burden of Proof in Statutory 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADI Limited

Appellant/respondent

Environment Protection Authority

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the burden of proving compliance with a pollution licence under s.16(6) of the Clean Waters Act 1970 lies with the defendant or the prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the discharge by ADI Limited exceeded the conditions of its licence, specifically regarding non-filtrable residue (NFR) concentration
  3. 3 Whether the fine imposed was manifestly inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proving compliance with licence conditions under s.16(6) of the Clean Waters Act 1970 lies with the defendant, not the prosecution. ADI Limited failed to discharge this onus because evidence showed the discharge contained non-filtrable residue well above the allowed limit. The sampling evidence was found reliable. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the penalty, though low, was not manifestly inadequate to justify appellate interference.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed, no order as to costs.