RMIT

COMMERCIAL LAW

[pic]

Weekly Case-studies for Small Group Seminars

Semester 1, 2012

Week 2 case study

Deciding what legislation means

Case-study: The toxic waste

Late in the afternoon on 1 December 2009 Alex Demetriou, who owns a waste removal business, collects a truckload of contaminated soil from excavations at a building site in Melbourne. He drives the full truck back to his company’s yard in Werribee. He leaves it parked there overnight, intending to drive it to a remote dump the next day.

A municipal inspector sees the truck in the yard and discovers that the soil in the truck is toxic waste. The inspector tells Alex that the law forbids storing such materials near a river or river bed without a special permit. Alex admits that the soil is contaminated and says that he cannot produce a permit. The Werribee River is three kilometres from the haulage company’s yard.

The inspector makes a report to the Police, who charge Alex with a breach of s 3 of an Act called the Contamination Avoidance Act. Alex is given the option of admitting guilt and paying a fine of $1,000. Otherwise, he will have to defend the charge in court.

Alex asks for your advice. He admits the soil was left in the yard, but says it was only left there overnight and that he always intended to move it the next day. He says that, in these circumstances, he does not think he contravened the Act.

You are asked to advise Alex whether to pay the $1,000 fine or defend the charge in court.

You search the AustLii databases and find the Contamination Avoidance Act. The Act contains provisions dealing with various environmental issues. The relevant sections of this Act are as follows:

Contamination Avoidance Act 2006 (Vic)