The recent Tasmanian tribunal decision in WM Stuart v.
Environmental Protection Authority [2012] TASRMPAT 110 (16
July 2012):
- highlights the relatively low threshold that the environmental
protection regulator is required to establish to issue an
investigation notice for contamination, and
- affirmed the principle in Premier Building and Consultant
Pty Ltd v Spotless Group Limited & Ors [2007] VSC 377 that
responsibility for contamination does not require a positive act or
some form of intention.
Facts
Mr Stuart was the former owner of a property which was leased to
a tenant who operated a service station. Contamination was located
on the property that was consistent with fuel leaking from
underground tanks on the property. While Mr Stuart had no part in
the day to day operation of the service station, the lease provided
that Mr Stuart was responsible for the maintenance of the
tanks.
