Victoria’s Worst Illegal Dumper Fined Record $60k and Ordered to Pay $1M+ Cleanup

Record-Breaking Environmental Fine and Remediation Order in Victoria

On 21 July 2024, the Heidelberg Magistrates Court handed down what is believed to be the highest fine ever imposed on an individual for an environmental crime under Victoria’s Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). Joseph Chetcuti was fined $60,000 and ordered to pay $12,000 in legal costs after pleading guilty to depositing and receiving reportable priority waste at an unlicensed facility, and to failing to comply with an Environmental Action Notice (EAN). More significantly, the court issued a binding remediation order requiring Chetcuti to fully clean up his 19,000 square metre (approximately 1.9 hectares) property at Black Gully Road, Diamond Creek, an undertaking EPA Victoria expects will cost well over $1 million. That cleanup obligation remains legally enforceable against Chetcuti even if the property is sold.

The case is not simply a sentencing outcome. It represents a deliberate and well-documented enforcement action by EPA Victoria against an industrial-scale illegal waste operation, one that involved construction and demolition (C&D) waste, asbestos-contaminated soil, and repeated non-compliance with regulatory directions. EPA Victoria CEO Lee Miezis described the operation as “brazen and highly organised,” conducted with “a blatant disregard for the community and the environment.” The prosecution used aerial photography and targeted vehicle surveillance to track commercial trucks delivering industrial waste to the unlicensed site, demonstrating a level of digital enforcement capability that practitioners and their clients should take seriously.

For environmental consultants, property lawyers, developers, and councils operating across Victoria and the broader Australian market, this ruling raises practical questions about due diligence obligations, personal liability exposure, the enforceability of contamination liabilities through property transactions, and the regulatory classification of asbestos-bearing fill material. Those questions are not rhetorical. They have direct implications for how Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are scoped, how fill acceptance and tracking protocols are designed, and how transaction warranties are worded.

Key details of the Chetcuti ruling and EPA Victoria enforcement action

The investigation originated following a major fire at the Diamond Creek property in May 2025. When EPA officers and emergency services attended the scene, they found that the fire involved stockpiles of C&D waste as well as soil heavily contaminated with asbestos. On 14 May 2025, EPA Victoria served Chetcuti with an Environmental Action Notice directing him to immediately cease accepting and burning waste, to classify all stockpiles on the property, and to engage a qualified occupational hygienist to verify that asbestos had been properly identified and removed. Chetcuti failed to comply with those directions. Rather than ceasing operations, he continued receiving industrial waste deliveries at the site.

EPA Victoria proved the ongoing illegal importation of fill material by using aerial photography and targeted surveillance, tracking the movement of commercial trucks to and from the site over a documented period. This evidence formed a central part of the prosecution case. Chetcuti ultimately pleaded guilty to two substantive charges: depositing and receiving reportable priority waste at an unlicensed facility under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), and failing to comply with an Environmental Action Notice issued under the same Act. Under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic), soil containing asbestos is classified as a reportable priority waste, a classification that triggers strict statutory obligations for storage, handling, transport, and disposal.

The financial penalties alone, totalling $72,000 in fines and costs, are secondary to the remediation order. EPA Victoria expects the full site cleanup will cost well over $1 million, a figure that reflects the volume and nature of the contaminated material stockpiled across the 1.9-hectare site. The court’s decision to make that obligation legally binding on the individual, and to confirm it survives any future sale of the property, is the most consequential element of the ruling. It removes the assumption, sometimes held by landowners and their advisors, that transferring title is sufficient to transfer environmental liability.

The ruling is understood to be the highest fine ever imposed on an individual under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), which came into force in July 2021 and introduced the General Environmental Duty (GED) as a positive obligation on all persons whose activities may harm human health or the environment. The GED places the burden of identifying, assessing, and managing environmental harm squarely on the party conducting or permitting the activity, not solely on those who can be proven to have knowingly caused harm.

Australian context: contaminated land regulation, priority waste, and enforcement trends

The Diamond Creek case is directly relevant to contaminated land practice across all Australian jurisdictions, not only Victoria. The classification of asbestos-bearing soil as a reportable priority waste under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) mirrors the hazardous and restricted solid waste classifications under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA). In Queensland, similar material would fall within the regulated waste categories established under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019 (Qld). Across all jurisdictions, the handling, transport, and disposal of asbestos-contaminated soil requires specific licensing, manifesting, and verification by a qualified occupational hygienist or asbestos assessor.

References and related sources

• Primary source: www.epa.vic.gov.au
• epa.vic.gov.au
• epa.vic.gov.au
• epa.vic.gov.au
• epa.vic.gov.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 remediation services
• iEnvi site assessment services
• iEnvi asbestos 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: 28 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.