Environmental Law and Litigation Report: Namastay Eco Resort Case

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of an environmental law case involving Robert Plant and James Page, owners of the Namastay Eco Resort, against Armageddon Pty Ltd and Careless Trash. The case centers on environmental violations caused by the defendants' operations, specifically noise pollution and its impact on the resort, wildlife, and the surrounding environment. The report includes a statement of claim, outlining the legal arguments, jurisdiction, and the causes of action, along with a detailed memo to a supervising partner, addressing issues such as the appropriate parties, actions against defendants, and the remedies sought. The report highlights the importance of addressing environmental concerns and the need for accountability and transparency, particularly in cases involving corruption. It also references relevant legislation and legal precedents to support the claims. The analysis covers the impact of noise and other environmental factors on the eco-resort and its operations, leading to potential financial losses and client cancellations, thus providing grounds for litigation.

Environmental Issue 1
Environmental Issue
Name
Course
Professor
Institution
Date

Environmental Issue 2
Environmental Issue
Task 1
Statement of Claim
Legal proceedings involve Robert Plant aged 71 years and James Page aged 76 years who
are businessmen and live at Lot 65 Paradise Road, Crystal Creek, NSW. The two clients were
previously musicians with successful musicians in rock band and currently have a healthy source
of income stream from loyalties. Both Robert and James run a 30 room Namastay Eco Resort at
their Crystal Creek property and they have been operating for 11 years. The two also operate a
wildlife rehabilitation center for injured, as well as sick native fauna and have to balance of their
450-hectare property designated as a wildlife refuge in Northern NSW and SE Queensland.
Claim
1. Robert claims that they purchased land in 2009 in rainforest and got some planners along
with architects to develop the purchased land. The development on the land took nearly
two years and about 3 or 4 million dollars and in the end created a great animal hospice
that employed some vets to operate the animal hospice. Robert claims that the Jimmy
with their families resided in separate dwellings that they had erected and spend around
1.5 million on mine and Jimmy because the music studio was much bigger1. Furthermore,
Robert claims that during the first years when their business started things were good,
where the refuge and rehab center were attracting international recognition. They started
1 Brian J. Preston, Climate Change in the Courts, 36 Monash U. L. Rev. 15, 49 (2010).

Environmental Issue 3
buildings air bridges, low impact walking tracks, designing swimming nooks in rainforest
streams and making it feel really special2.
2. Robert further claims that in 2018, they established that the land adjacent to their situated
immediately upstream on Utopia Creek owned by Armageddon Pty Ltd had been
approved for development and they had not received notice for the same where the
construction was ongoing. The company owned a waste management business named
Careless Trash and other businesses that included security guard hire business, as well as
children’s action toy manufacturing company. The approval to construct a manufacturing
business was approved by incompetent and corrupt officials at State Government level
and attracted opposition from the Local Council3.
3. Robert wrote to the company in 2019 concerning Armageddon’s practices and operations
that were environmentally sensitive since the habitat hosted many endangered species
and the area was popular destination for visitors. The factory complex operates 24 hours
and emits very loud noises from the operation of plant presses, compressors, as well as
metal cutters plus grinders. The noise from the factory was affecting the two
complainants and the noise was destroying neighbors and businesses and more so
affecting the environment negatively.
2 Linda Pearson, Policy, Principles, & Guidance: Tribunal Rule Making, 23 PUB. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012).
3 Brian J. Preston, The Use of Restorative Justice for Environmental Crime, 35 CRIM. L.J. 136 (2012).

Environmental Issue 4
Task 2
Memo
To: Armageddon Pty Ltd
From: Robert Plant and James Page, Namastay Eco Resort at their Crystal Creek
Date: 25/3/2020
RE: Environmental Concern
1. Parties Involved
The parties involved in the case are Robert Plant and James Page as complainants and
Careless Trash as the defendant. Robert and Jimmy is the plaintiff in the case concerning the
noise effects and other environmental effects caused by the Armageddon Pty Ltd because of its
operations that affects the businesses and neighbors near the premises of the plaintiffs in the
case. The plaintiff has grounds to prove that the Armageddon Pty Ltd has violated environmental
provisions and the company has negatively affected the community where Jimmy and Robert
they reside and have their business and wildlife rehab center.
2. Actions against all possible defendants
The actions against all possible defendants in the case of involving the defendants must not be
incorporated into one proceeding since it affects Armageddon Pty Ltd, and Careless Trash that have
violated environmental regulations. The plaintiff-James and Robert-believes that the companies have
been involved in breaches of environmental laws by exposing the residents to noise that is affecting their

Environmental Issue 5
lives4. The company operates 24 hours and emits noises that have affected the wildlife and the birds are
scarcer than before due to the noise from the plant. Moreover, the noise has destroyed the enmity of the
location for the visitors that has affected the serenity of the environment. These grounds are sufficient to
file a case against the Armageddon Pty Ltd and Careless Waste that has continued to emit harmful noise
disturbing the ecosystem5. Furthermore, the high-pitched metal cutting noise are disturbing some animals
being cared for , especially the Koalas, wallabies, and wombats. It should be noted that environmental
issues are often intertwined with corruption issues. To do a good job of environmental rectification and
acceleration of good ecological restoration, we must simultaneously address related corruption issues.
Regarding the problem of violating environmental laws and crimes, regardless of the background of
money or power behind it, whether the parties are on the job or retired, the relevant departments should
resolutely investigate to the end and never tolerate them6.
3. Cause of action and remedies needed
The case should be filed as environmental violation of laws that govern the environment and
the potential costs caused by the noise by Armageddon Pty Ltd and Careless Waste. The case
should be filed as urgent because it is negatively impacting animals and humans. The costs that
could be filed in the case include land cost of $2.5 million including all fees that has to date a
total cost of $6,329,158.95 that covers the latest developments, air bridges, paths among others7.
The environmental issues that would be addressed in the case include smell, noise, as well as
4 Wayne J Attrill, “The Future of Litigation Funding in Australia” in Michael Legg (ed), The Future of Dispute
Resolution (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2013) 167
5 George (Rock) Pring and Catherine Pring, Environmental Courts & Tribunals: A Guide for Policy Makers (UN
Environment Programme 2016)
6 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 12(2)
7 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 30.

Environmental Issue 6
environmental degradation that have led to cancellations at Namastay making the company to
lose clients. The cancellation of client bookings have become rampant and causing huge losses
on the company because of the noise and smell from the company in question. The noise is
destroying lives, as well as businesses that are another ground that the case will be filed in an
effort to sue the Armageddon Pty Ltd and Careless Waste. Therefore, there is a sufficient ground
to file a case against Armageddon Pty Ltd and Careless Waste as the defendant and Robert and
James as the plaintiff in the case to implicate the companies for environmental violation8. There
is also a need for accountability and transparency. We are constantly hearing from the lips of
senior officials about ecology, nature conservation and the need for urgent measures to conserve
and restore it, which should become the priority areas of state policy. Also, much has been said
from the stands about strengthening measures to combat corruption in state bodies and local
governments, and the transparency of their activities. However, in words everything looks
beautiful, while in reality little changes for the better. Not many people think that the
environmental problems affecting us arise precisely due to various corruption violations at
different levels of government. It is difficult enough to influence the situation when corruption
ties go high upwards, for example, when the Government gives the green light to the
construction of strategically important facilities, despite all the environmental consequences for
nature and citizens. In such cases, law enforcement and supervisory authorities most often do
nothing, not wanting to go against the will of federal or regional authorities. It would seem easier
8 Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 530-531, 539, 547-548.

Environmental Issue 7
to counter the manifestations of the so-called “grassroots” corruption at the local level, but here
too anticorruption officials have difficulties9.
4. Steps Taken
There is evident to implicate the companies violating environmental laws by emitting noise
the business operated by Robert and James. The noise and smell from factory of Armageddon
Pty Ltd and Careless Waste warrants the owners to sue the companies for the violation of the
laws that govern the environment. Hence, it will be appropriate for the owners on the premises to
sue the company in the court by filing a petition and sue also local authorities for not taking
action against the companies despite evidence on the blatant violation of environmental laws.
Furthermore, it would be appropriate to sue the companies has the smell and noise from their
operations that has led to cancellations of booking by clients. The cancellations statistics must be
used to file a case because it is apparent that the company has lost huge amounts because of
cancellations of the bookings by the clients. The determination on the case to sue the companies
will be founded on the environmental impacts due to its activities that have affected humans,
businesses and animals in the area10.
There is also need to address corruption issues. Facts have proved that behind some cases of
serious damage to the ecological environment, political issues and style issues are exposed, and
issues such as governing the party and governing the party are exposed. Although the
development concept of "green water, green mountains and golden mountains and silver
mountains" has long been popular, some local governments still have not really taken
9 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 37.
10 Tasmanian Wilderness Society Inc v Fraser (1982) 153 CLR 270 at 274

Environmental Issue 8
environmental governance and ecological restoration as an important political task; some party
and government officials have low political standing. Insufficient understanding of
environmental protection work and unsatisfactory rectification attitude have led to the situation
that “environmental protection gives way to economic development” in some places11. What's
more, in the process of environmental remediation, some local governments cast jealousy
because of corruption problems, which caused some major environmental damage problems that
could not be solved for a long time, which caused very bad effects and seriously damaged the
credibility of the government.
Ecological production is also necessary. The ecology of production implies the creation of
favorable conditions for workers of a particular industry, for example, industry, and the provision
of favorable environmental conditions for people living near the production. The authorities are
obliged to take measures to minimize environmental damage from industry (to seek proper
treatment of emissions and discharges, minimize industrial waste, compliance with sanitary
protection zones established by law, etc.). But far from always these bodies give priority to the
rights of citizens, and take into account first of all the interests of business, the development
priorities of the region, and, of course, their selfish interests.
Bibliography
Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 530-531, 539,
547-548.
11 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 30.

Environmental Issue 9
Brian J. Preston, Climate Change in the Courts, 36 Monash U. L. Rev. 15, 49 (2013).
Brian J. Preston, The Use of Restorative Justice for Environmental Crime, 35 CRIM. L.J. 136
(2012).
George (Rock) Pring and Catherine Pring, Environmental Courts & Tribunals: A Guide for
Policy Makers (UN Environment Programme 2016)
Jayakumar, S, Tommy T. B. Koh, Robert C. Beckman, and Hao D. Phan. Transboundary
Pollution: Evolving Issues of International Law and Policy. (SAGE, 2015).
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 12(2)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 30.
Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) s 37.
Linda Pearson, Policy, Principles, & Guidance: Tribunal Rule Making, 23 PUB. L. REV.
(forthcoming 2012).
Tasmanian Wilderness Society Inc v Fraser (1982) 153 CLR 270 at 274
Wayne J Attrill, “The Future of Litigation Funding in Australia” in Michael Legg (ed), The
Future of Dispute Resolution (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2013) 167