Michael Anthony fights $300,000 fine over Darwin Harbour dumping

A Darwin Harbour developer will fight the largest ever fine ever handed down in Local Court for a pollution notice charge.

THE removal of concrete, contaminated soil and asbestos from Darwin Harbour could cost up to $18m, the Supreme Court has heard.

Darwin property developer Michael Adrian Anthony and his company DWD Project Pty Ltd are appealing a $300,000 fine after being found guilty of failing to comply with pollution abatement notices in December.

Anthony appeared in the Supreme Court on Tuesday to push for a resentencing hearing for breaches of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act.

The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority issued the businessman a notice to stop illegally dumping construction and demolition waste and contaminants on his land and two neighbouring crown land properties in June.

The waste is said to have contained asbestos, timber, concrete and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contaminated soil.

In December, Anthony and his company DWD Project Pty Ltd were found guilty of not complying with Pollution Abatement Notices.

The fine was the largest ever handed down in Local Court for contravening the Act.

Last week, Anthony’s senior counsel David Robinson argued it was “plainly unjust” and pushed for resentencing.

Darwin property developer Michael Adrian Anthony and his company DWD Project Pty Ltd have attempted to appeal a $300,000 fine. Picture by Che Chorley.

“There’s no particular arithmetic calculation that magistrates perform … under those circumstances ... This (fine) was plainly unjust – it’s very large,” he said.

Mr Robinson also argued the penalty had the potential to prejudice other charges connected to the property.

The court heard Anthony had been charged with a pollution offence, which could carry a five-year prison term, and violating the Planning Act.

Mr Robinson told the Supreme Court the pollution abatement notices case was not a matter of “dumping rubbish on someone else’s block”.

He said Anthony bought his Darwin harbourfront property for $6.5m and intended to buy the adjoining blocks.

He said his client’s expansion of the property was consistent with the precinct development plan, but he had “jumped the gun” on the project.

“It all came unstuck and the land previously worth a lot of money was only worth $3m,” he said.

Mr Robinson said, given the land’s devaluation, the abatement notices placed a significant burden on the developer.

“It was going to be a very expensive exercise to comply with,” he said. “The evidence in the pollution case is between $4m and $18m ... It’s not being put forward as a defence, but it’s an explanation.”

Mr Robinson also suggested that the long history of use at the Darwin Harbour site meant it had not been proven that the pollutants were solely caused by his client’s actions.

“The NT EPA could not rule out the possibility that the land was already polluted by a predecessor to the title,” he said.

Justice John Burns said he would consider the application for a resentencing hearing, with a decision to be handed down at a later date.