Victorian Court Hands Down Record Individual Fine and $1M+ Clean-Up Order Over Illegal Asbestos and Industrial Waste Dumping

Victorian Court Hands Down Record Individual Fine and $1 Million Clean-Up Order Over Illegal Asbestos and Industrial Waste Dumping

Overview of the Diamond Creek Illegal Dumping Prosecution

The Heidelberg Magistrates Court has sentenced Diamond Creek landowner Joseph Chetcuti to a $60,000 fine and ordered him to pay $12,000 in legal costs following his guilty plea to operating an illegal waste dumping and burning operation on his 19,000 square metre (approximately 1.9 hectare) property at Black Gully Road, Diamond Creek, Victoria. The sentence, handed down on 21 July 2023, is understood to be the highest fine ever imposed on an individual under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). The court also issued a clean-up order requiring Chetcuti to fully remediate the site, with EPA Victoria estimating total remediation costs will exceed $1 million.

The case began when emergency services and EPA Victoria responded to a major fire at the property, which was fuelled by burning industrial construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Subsequent environmental investigations revealed stockpiles of asbestos-contaminated soil spread across the unlicensed site. Chetcuti pleaded guilty to depositing and receiving waste and reportable priority waste at an unlicensed facility, as well as failing to comply with an Environmental Action Notice (EAN) issued under Section 290(1) of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic).

For environmental professionals advising developers, property owners, legal counsel, and local councils across Victoria and nationally, this decision carries substantial weight. It confirms that personal liability under Victoria’s modern environmental framework is real, financially devastating, and not extinguished by a change in land ownership. The ruling sets a clear judicial precedent that individual site owners, not just corporations, are firmly within the enforcement crosshairs of EPA Victoria.

Key details of the prosecution, offences, and remediation obligations

Chetcuti was prosecuted under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) for two distinct categories of offending. First, he deposited and received waste, including reportable priority waste, at a site that was not licensed to accept it. Second, he failed to comply with an Environmental Action Notice served under Section 290(1) of the Act. An EAN is a formal regulatory tool that compels a person to take specified actions to address an environmental hazard or pollution event. Non-compliance with an EAN is a standalone offence carrying serious penalties.

The waste involved included industrial C&D debris, which was actively burning on the property when emergency services first attended the site. Critically, subsequent soil investigations identified stockpiles of asbestos-containing material (ACM) across the 19,000 square metre property. Asbestos-contaminated soil is classified as reportable priority waste under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic), meaning its generation, transport, and disposal are subject to strict tracking and licensing requirements. The presence of asbestos on the site triggered a significantly elevated regulatory response and will be a dominant cost driver in the remediation programme, which EPA Victoria has estimated will exceed $1 million in total.

The $60,000 fine represents the maximum fine available to the Magistrates’ Court for an individual in this context, though the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) carries higher maximum penalties at higher court levels. The additional $12,000 in legal costs, combined with the court-ordered clean-up obligation, means Chetcuti faces a personal liability well in excess of $1,072,000. The clean-up obligation is legally binding on Chetcuti personally and is not discharged by the transfer or sale of the property. This is a critical distinction: the remediation liability attaches to the individual, not merely to the land title, meaning a purchaser would acquire a site already subject to a court-sanctioned remediation order with the former owner still personally obligated to fund and execute the works.

EPA Victoria confirmed that the regulator’s investigation extended upstream to the waste supply chain. Multiple commercial trucking companies have been identified as having used Chetcuti’s unlicensed site to avoid lawful disposal fees. EPA Victoria stated publicly that the prosecution sends a strong message to those operating illegally, whether they are the party doing the dumping or the party facilitating it by accepting waste. This signals that follow-on enforcement action against transport operators and potentially their clients (the original waste generators) remains active.

Australian regulatory context for illegal waste dumping, asbestos soil, and individual liability

Victoria’s Environment Protection Act 2017 fundamentally reformed the state’s environmental liability framework when it came into operation in July 2021. Central to this reform is the General Environmental Duty (GED), which requires any person conducting an activity that may give rise to environmental risks to understand those risks and take reasonably practicable steps to minimise them. Unlike the previous regime, the GED applies to individuals and not just licensed businesses or corporations. A landowner who accepts fill materials or allows waste to be deposited on their property without verifying its classification and provenance is, on the face of it, engaging in conduct that may breach the GED even before any formal notice is issued.

The classification of asbestos-contaminated soil as reportable priority waste under the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) is consistent with the broader national treatment of asbestos-containing materials. Across Australian jurisdictions, asbestos waste is subject to elevated controls. In New South Wales, asbestos waste management is governed by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and associated regulations, which impose strict licensing, transport, and disposal requirements comparable to those in Victoria. The Diamond Creek case serves as a timely reminder to landowners in all jurisdictions that accepting unverified fill or waste materials, even informally or for a fee, can expose them to significant personal financial and legal liability.

References and related sources

• Primary source: www.epa.vic.gov.au
• epa.vic.gov.au
• 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: 27 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.