NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jeffman Pty Ltd and Lawrence Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority of NSW, Sydney Water Corporation and Douglas and Hilary Hutchinson [2011] NSWLEC 89 Hearing dates: 6-10 December 2010, 13-17 December 2010 and 13 April 2011 Decision date: 26 May 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Preston CJ Decision: The Court: 1. upholds the appeal; 2. revokes the Management Order No. 20101404 dated 3 June 2010 made by the Environment Protection Authority of NSW; 3. makes the Management Order annexed; and 4. reserves the question of costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: APPEAL - management order to polluters to remediate contaminated land - appeal by polluters against terms of management order - joinder of neighbouring, affected landholders to appeal - agreement on remediation standards - disagreement on remediation technologies to be used to achieve standards - principle of subsidiarity - whether choice of remediation technologies to achieve standards should be left to polluters - uncertainty as to efficacy of polluters' preferred remediation technology of bioremediation - whether uncertainty means that management order should preclude use of bioremediation - requirements for monitoring and adaptive management - timing for remediation - scope of investigations - lands on which contaminants should be contained - process for approval of remediation action plan - wording of conditions of management order Legislation Cited: Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 ss 9, 13, 14, 16, 47, 50, 60, 61, 62 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jeffman Pty Ltd and Lawrence Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd (Applicants) Environment Protection Authority of NSW (First Respondent) Sydney Water Corporation (Second Respondent) Douglas and Hilary Hutchinson (Third and Fourth Respondents) Representation: Mr P Tomasetti SC with Mr J Johnson (Applicants) Henry Davis York (Applicants) Environment Protection Authority (First Respondent) Clayton Utz (Second Respondent) Philip Goldman & Associates (Third and Fourth Respondents) File Number(s): 10446 of 2010
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate