Record $60,000 Personal Fine for Illegal Waste Dumping at Diamond Creek: What the EPA Victoria Ruling Means for Landowners and Environmental Practitioners
Background of the Diamond Creek Waste Case
On 21 July 2023, the Heidelberg Magistrates Court issued what is believed to be the highest fine ever imposed on an individual under Victoria’s current environmental legislation, fining Diamond Creek landowner Joseph Chetcuti $60,000 and ordering him to pay $12,000 in legal costs. The prosecution was brought by EPA Victoria following a sustained pattern of illegal waste dumping at a 19,000 square metre (1.9 hectare) semi-rural property on Black Gully Road, Diamond Creek. Chetcuti pleaded guilty to two charges: depositing and receiving waste and reportable priority waste, including asbestos-contaminated soil, at a site not licensed to receive such material; and failing to comply with an Environmental Action Notice (EAN) issued under section 290(1) of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). Beyond the financial penalties, the court has ordered Chetcuti to remediate the site at an estimated cost exceeding $1 million.
The significance of this ruling extends well beyond the specifics of one property in Melbourne’s north-eastern fringe. It represents a clear statement from the Victorian judiciary that environmental offences involving priority waste and non-compliance with regulatory notices will be treated as serious criminal conduct, not administrative infractions. For environmental professionals, developers, conveyancers, and councils, the case crystallises several liability risks that have historically been under-appreciated, particularly around the acceptance of imported fill and the personal exposure of individual landowners under the General Environmental Duty framework.
The case also marks a notable evolution in EPA Victoria’s enforcement methodology. The regulator’s decision to deploy aerial photography and active physical surveillance to document ongoing non-compliance demonstrates a sophisticated, evidence-based approach to prosecution. This signals to the broader property and construction sector that regulatory oversight is no longer limited to reactive site inspections, and that attempts to continue illegal activities after receiving an EAN will be met with methodical, documented enforcement action capable of supporting a criminal conviction.
Key details of the Diamond Creek prosecution and the penalties imposed
The Diamond Creek matter first came to EPA Victoria’s attention following an industrial waste fire at the Black Gully Road property in May 2025. The fire, involving stockpiled waste material, triggered an investigation that led to the issue of an Environmental Action Notice directing Chetcuti to cease accepting and burning waste at the site, classify all existing stockpiles, and engage a qualified occupational hygienist to verify that asbestos had been appropriately identified and removed. Under section 290(1) of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), non-compliance with an EAN is a standalone offence, and it was this continued non-compliance, documented over the period following the notice, that formed the second limb of the prosecution.
The waste material at the centre of the case included asbestos-contaminated soil, which is classified as reportable priority waste under Victorian regulations. This classification is not a minor administrative category. Reportable priority waste triggers mandatory tracking obligations under the EPA Waste Tracker system, strict requirements for transport by licensed contractors, and disposal only at facilities licensed to accept such material. Asbestos-contaminated soil commonly arises from demolition of pre-1987 residential and commercial structures where asbestos-containing materials, including fibro sheeting, roof tiles, and insulation, were incorporated into building fabric. When such material is crushed or broken during demolition and mixed with soil, the resulting fill is legally classified as a priority waste regardless of the visual appearance of the material or the asbestos fibre concentration.
To establish ongoing non-compliance after the EAN was issued, EPA Victoria used a combination of aerial photography and active physical surveillance to document commercial trucks continuing to deliver construction and demolition fill to the property. This evidence was central to the prosecution and demonstrates that the offending was not an isolated event but a deliberate and organised commercial operation. The $60,000 fine represents the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the two charges in combination, and the $12,000 costs order reflects the significant investigative and prosecutorial resources EPA Victoria committed to the matter. The clean-up estimate of over $1 million reflects the volume of contaminated material requiring classification, transport, and disposal through licensed channels, together with the potential need for soil remediation or validation works depending on the degree to which priority waste has been incorporated into the property’s ground surface and subsurface.
A particularly important aspect of the court’s orders is that the clean-up obligation runs with the individual, not merely with the land at the time of sentencing. The court has ordered that Chetcuti must remediate the site even if the property is sold. This is a critical distinction from the common assumption that transferring title extinguishes personal liability for past environmental harm. Under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), the General Environmental Duty places an obligation on persons who undertake activities that may give rise to environmental harm to understand the risks and take reasonably practicable measures to minimise them. The court’s approach confirms that the duty does not dissolve on disposal of the asset, and that individuals who deliberately create environmental harm through illegal waste activities remain personally liable for remediation costs and regulatory compliance obligations regardless of any subsequent change in land ownership.
References and related sources
- Primary source: www.epa.vic.gov.au
- claytonutz.com
- epa.vic.gov.au
- sers.net.au
- NEPM Assessment of Site Contamination
- EPA Victoria
How iEnvi can help
iEnvi provides specialist consulting services relevant to this topic. Our team includes CEnvP Site Contamination Specialists with experience across contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, ecology, and regulatory compliance.
- iEnvi asbestos services
- iEnvi contaminated land investigation services
- iEnvi remediation and validation services
- iEnvi expert services and independent review services
This is an iEnvi Machete news summary. Prepared by iEnvi to summarise the source article for contaminated land, groundwater, remediation, approvals and site risk professionals.
Published: 25 Jul 2026
Need advice on this topic? Speak to an iEnvi expert at info@ienvi.com.au or 1300 043 684, or contact us online.
Need advice on this issue? iEnvi provides practical, senior-led environmental consulting across contaminated land, remediation, ecology and environmental risk.
Team credentials Soil remediation Contaminated land services Groundwater services Talk to iEnvi