State Pollution Control Commission v Metropolitan Collieries Limited [1989] NSWLEC 225

State Pollution Control Commission v Metropolitan Collieries Limited [1989] NSWLEC 225

The company was guilty only of the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt. The washery works were not works for the storage, treatment or disposal of prescribed matter merely because washery water would drain into an existing pond, and the stockpile charge was not proved because intermittent prior stockpiling meant no alteration in method of operation was established. The additional Water Licence conditions came into force on 9 May 1988, and the company breached conditions 2, 5 and 6 because road run-off entered the dirty water system, the bund wall was under two metres and not vegetated, and coal or refuse stockpile material was within the prohibited buffer. The Camp Creek charge was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1989
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Under the Clean Air Act 1961, Clean Waters Act 1970 and State Pollution Control Commission Act / Judgment After Hearing of Nine Charges
Outcome
Charges 50034, 50035, 50036 and 50037 were proved; charges 50032, 50033, 50038, 50039 and 50040 were not proved or were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['clean Air Act 1961' 'clean Waters Act 1970' 'pollution Control Licences' 'licence Conditions' 'air Pollution' 'water Pollution' 'control Equipment']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['clean Air Act 1961' 'clean Waters Act 1970' 'pollution Control Licences' 'licence Conditions' 'air Pollution' 'water Pollution' 'control Equipment']

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

Prosecution for Offences Under the Clean Air Act 1961, Clean Waters Act 1970 and State Pollution Control Commission Act / Judgment After Hearing of Nine Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether work on the coal washery constituted the beginning of works for the storage, treatment or disposal of prescribed matter without pollution control approval under s 19(1)(b) of the Clean Waters Act.' 'Whether creating or increasing a coal stockpile amounted to altering the method of operation of scheduled premises under s 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act.' 'Whether additional conditions attached to the Water Licence had come into force by 18 May 1988.' 'Whether clean run-off water from the road and sealed car parking area entered the dirty water treatment system in breach of additional condition 2.' 'Whether the bund wall breached additional condition 5 by being less than two metres high and not vegetated.' 'Whether coal or refuse stockpiles breached additional condition 6 by being within five metres of a railway line or cutting.' 'Whether material placed above Camp Creek amounted to pollution of waters under s 16(1) of the Clean Waters Act.' 'Whether drains and the filter bed were maintained in an efficient condition under s 20 of the Clean Waters Act.' 'Whether alleged overflow or material on the filter bed established pollution of waters under s 16(1) of the Clean Waters Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The company was guilty only of the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt. The washery works were not works for the storage, treatment or disposal of prescribed matter merely because washery water would drain into an existing pond, and the stockpile charge was not proved because intermittent prior stockpiling meant no alteration in method of operation was established. The additional Water Licence conditions came into force on 9 May 1988, and the company breached conditions 2, 5 and 6 because road run-off entered the dirty water system, the bund wall was under two metres and not vegetated, and coal or refuse stockpile material was within the prohibited buffer. The Camp Creek charge was...

Court Disposition

Charges 50034, 50035, 50036 and 50037 were proved; charges 50032, 50033, 50038, 50039 and 50040 were not proved or were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Charge No 50032/88 dismissed or not proved.' 'Charge No 50033/88 dismissed or not proved.' 'Charge No 50034/88 proved: breach of additional condition 2 of the Water Licence.' 'Charge No 50035/88 proved: breach of additional condition 5 of the Water Licence.' 'Charge No 50036/88 proved: breach of s 16(1) of the...