Event and Time
Event Description
In March 2019, the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment ("the Prosecutor") charged Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and Burton Contractors Pty Ltd ("the Defendants") with breaches related to a development consent condition concerning civil engineering works at an industrial estate in Western Sydney.
Application and Claims
- The charges alleged breaches of Condition E25 of the development consent.
- The Defendants challenged these charges on the basis that they were duplicitous, leading to a series of amendments by the Prosecutor to address the issue.
- Ultimately, the charges were deemed (i) unknown to the law, (ii) patently duplicitous, (iii) latently duplicitous, and (iv) constituted a fresh charge beyond the statutory time limit.
- Following the dismissal of the charges, the Defendants sought an order for costs for the entirety of the proceedings based on exceptional circumstances.
Judicial Decisions
- The court acknowledged exceptional circumstances due to the Prosecutor's handling of the charges and awarded costs to each Defendant for the whole proceedings.
- Costs for the proceedings related to the costs applications were also awarded to the Defendants.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Defendants' Claims:
- Asserted that the charges were invalid due to their duplicitous nature. - Argued that the Prosecutor's attempts to amend the charges only led to further complications and did not satisfy legal requirements. - Cited section 257D(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, arguing for costs based on the Prosecutor’s conduct in initiating invalid charges.
- Prosecutor's Position:
- Attempted to amend charges to remedy the duplicitous nature but ultimately failed to provide a valid legal basis for the charges. - Argued that they were acting in good faith in trying to comply with legal requisites concerning the charges.