Diamond Creek Illegal Asbestos Dumping Case Overview
On 21 July 2023, the Heidelberg Magistrates Court handed down what is believed to be the highest individual fine ever issued under Victoria’s current Environment Protection Act 2017, penalising Diamond Creek landowner Joseph Chetcuti $60,000 plus $12,000 in legal costs for operating an illegal waste dumping and burning operation on his 19,000 square metre property at Black Gully Road. The court also ordered Chetcuti to undertake a full site cleanup, a task that EPA Victoria expects will cost well over $1 million given the extent of asbestos-contaminated soil and mixed construction and demolition waste discovered on the land. The ruling is a significant marker in how Victorian courts are applying the 2017 Act’s penalty provisions, and it sends a clear message to landowners, developers, and their advisers across Australia.
The case came to light in May 2025 following a major fire at the property, which drew emergency services and EPA Victoria officers to the site. What they found was not an isolated dumping incident but a highly organised, active operation receiving commercial loads of industrial waste and construction fill, then burning it on-site. EPA Victoria built its evidentiary case using aerial photography, drone surveillance, and vehicle tracking to document the systematic movement of commercial trucks onto the property over time. Chetcuti ultimately pleaded guilty to two charges: depositing and receiving industrial and reportable priority waste at an unlicensed site, and failing to comply with an Environmental Action Notice (EAN) issued under Section 290(1) of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic).
For environmental practitioners, developers, transaction lawyers, and council planners, this case is more than a headline penalty. It crystallises several intersecting risks around waste classification, regulatory notice compliance, contaminated land liability, and property transactions that are relevant across all Australian jurisdictions, not just Victoria. The ruling reinforces that environmental liability for legacy contamination is not extinguished by a property sale, a fact with direct implications for due diligence practice across the country.
Key details of the Chetcuti prosecution and site contamination findings
Chetcuti pleaded guilty to two discrete charges. The first was depositing and receiving industrial waste and reportable priority waste at a site not licensed to accept such material. Under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), industrial waste and reportable priority waste are defined categories carrying strict management and tracking obligations. Construction and demolition waste containing asbestos falls squarely within the reportable priority waste category, triggering requirements for classification, documentation, and disposal at a facility licensed to receive it. The second charge, non-compliance with an Environmental Action Notice under Section 290(1) of the Act, is particularly significant because it represents a direct failure to respond to a formal regulatory direction, elevating the conduct from a single breach to a sustained pattern of non-compliance.
The EAN served on Chetcuti directed him to cease operations, classify all waste on the property, and engage a qualified occupational hygienist to verify the removal of asbestos-containing material. He failed to comply with each of these requirements. This is the aspect of the case that practitioners should examine most carefully. Section 290(1) creates a standalone criminal offence for failing to comply with an EAN, separate from the original underlying conduct. It means a landowner or operator who might otherwise have negotiated a compliance pathway instead compounds their criminal exposure by ignoring the notice entirely.
The site contamination profile at Black Gully Road involves asbestos in soil, which under the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 2013 (NEPM 2013) requires specific assessment against health investigation levels for asbestos. NEPM 2013 Schedule B2 addresses asbestos-in-soil and distinguishes between friable and non-friable asbestos, with different management thresholds applying to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Given the fire history of the site and the burning of mixed construction waste, the potential for both bonded and friable asbestos contamination across a 19,000 square metre area represents a substantial and complex remediation challenge, which is consistent with the EPA’s estimate that cleanup costs will exceed $1 million.
EPA Victoria’s use of drone surveillance, aerial photography, and vehicle tracking to document the operation is also noteworthy from a regulatory methodology perspective. These are not passive monitoring tools. The regulator was actively building a prosecutable evidentiary record over time, tracking the frequency, volume, and commercial nature of waste deliveries to the site. This approach reflects the broader shift in Australian environmental enforcement toward proactive, technology-assisted surveillance rather than reactive complaint-driven responses. For practitioners advising clients on sites receiving fill or managing demolition waste, the implication is that regulatory observation may already be underway before any notice is issued.
Australian context: how this ruling applies to contaminated land practice in QLD, NSW, VIC and SA
Victoria’s Environment Protection Act 2017 introduced a significantly strengthened enforcement framework compared to its 1970 predecessor, including the General Environmental Duty (GED), expanded notice powers, and higher penalty provisions. The Chetcuti ruling demonstrates that courts are willing to apply these provisions at the upper end of the individual penalty range. While the $60,000 fine is specific to Victoria’s penalty framework, comparable exposure exists in other jurisdictions. In New South Wales, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides for substantial penalties for unlawful disposal of waste, with courts there similarly willing to impose significant fines where the conduct is systematic and commercial in nature. Queensland’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 and associated environmental protection legislation carry equivalent prohibitions on unlicensed waste disposal, with penalty levels that reflect the seriousness of contamination risk. In South Australia, the Environment Protection Act 1993 establishes analogous offences for illegal waste management and non-compliance with environment protection orders. Across all these jurisdictions, the Chetcuti case serves as a practical illustration of how regulators are building technology-assisted evidentiary cases and pursuing prosecution at the higher end of available penalty ranges, a trend practitioners advising on waste management, site acquisition, and development approvals should factor into their risk assessments.
References and related sources
- Primary source: www.epa.vic.gov.au
- epa.vic.gov.au
- 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 due diligence 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 Contaminated land services Remediation services Groundwater services Talk to iEnvi