FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 210
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Reasons for Judgment published on 8 March 2013 (Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205) be amended by deleting [129] thereof and substituting therefor [129] as indicated in the attached Reasons for Judgment.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | ACD 29 of 2012 |
BETWEEN: | CLEAN ENERGY REGULATOR Applicant
|
AND: | MT SOLAR PTY LTD (ACN 143 322 089) First Respondent GREEN MASTER BUILDING SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 146 546 349) Second Respondent BO LIU Third Respondent YONGXIN ZHU Fourth Respondent BARRY ELI KIBBLEWHITE Fifth Respondent
|
JUDGE: | FOSTER J |
DATE: | 11 MARCH 2013 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 8 March 2013, I published Reasons for Judgment in this matter (Clean Energy Regulator v MT Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 205).
2 I have subsequently realised that [129] of those Reasons contains a number of arithmetical errors in the calculated ranges of penalties referred to in that paragraph. Notwithstanding those arithmetical errors, I wish to make clear that I had intended to impose a penalty of $70,000 on MT Solar Pty Ltd. That was the penalty which, in fact, I imposed upon MT Solar Pty Ltd on 8 March 2013.
3 In order for my Reasons for Judgment of 8 March 2013 to be correctly understood, the following paragraph should be substituted for [129] in those Reasons:
129. When those starting point penalties are applied and totalled, the range of starting point penalties is $151,250–$206,250. To that range, I propose to apply a 40% discount for co-operation thereby reducing the range to $90,750–$123,750. I propose also to apply a further 20% discount to take account of the totality principle. When that discount is applied, the proposed range of penalty is $72,600–$99,000. I think that that range throws up a penalty which is still too high. I think that a penalty just under the lower end of the range is justified. In all the circumstances, I will impose a penalty of $70,000 upon MT Solar.
4 I propose to amend my Reasons for Judgment published on 8 March 2013 accordingly.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster. |
Associate: