Environment Protection Authority v Schon G Condon as liquidator for Orchard Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWCA 149

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Schon G Condon as liquidator for Orchard Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWCA 149 Hearing dates: 28 April 2014 Decision date: 16 May 2014 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; McColl JA at [2]; Leeming JA at [3] Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs. Catchwords: APPEALS - whether necessary to deal with notice of contention - not fully argued, not free from difficulty, not determined by primary judge - Kuru v New South Wales [2008] HCA 26; 236 CLR 1 applied

CORPORATIONS LAW - liquidator's rejection of proof of debt - proof based on erroneous construction of regulation - appeal dismissed

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - contributions in respect of waste received at waste facility - occupier operated quarry and received waste from off-site - inadequate records of waste received kept - EPA based contribution on estimate of waste at the waste facility and determined contribution accordingly

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - construction of regulation - construction as a whole and in context - weight to be given to minor textual differences - anomalies arising on one construction - scope of regulation-making power - whether construction beyond scope of or inconsistent with Act - preference to be given to construction which is within power Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1321 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 41 Legislation Review Act 1987 (NSW), ss 8A, 9 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), ss 3, 88, 91, 104, 107, 323 Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 (NSW), cl 5, 6, 12, 13 State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008 (NSW), Schedule 15 Cases Cited: Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines International Ltd [1999] HCA 62; 202 CLR 133 Aroona Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Killen [2004] NSWCA 363; 50 ACSR 668 Attorney-General (Cth) v Oates [1999] HCA 35; 198 CLR 162 Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide [2013] HCA 3; 87 ALJR 289 Boorer v HLB Mann Judd (NSW) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 100 Doyalson Wyee RSL Club Ltd v Liquor Administration Board of NSW [2007] NSWSC 910 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 Kuru v New South Wales [2008] HCA 26; 236 CLR 1 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 Master Education Services Pty Ltd v Ketchell [2008] HCA 38; 236 CLR 101 Mine Subsidence Board v Jemena Ltd and Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 465 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning v Rosemount Estates Pty Ltd [1996] NSWSC 348; 91 LGERA 31 Morton v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245 at 250 Smalley v Motor Accident Authority of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 318 South Australia v Tanner (1989) 166 CLR 161 Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien (1990) 169 CLR 332 The Queen v Khazaal [2012] HCA 26; 246 CLR 601 Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977 Williams v Melbourne Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 142 Texts Cited: P Herzfeld, T Prince and S Tully, Interpretation and Use of Legal Sources (2013) Thomson Reuters, p 383 O Jones, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (6th ed 2013), p 238 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Appellant) Orchard Holdings (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: JC Giles (Appellant) RD Glasson (Respondent)