A video provider has lost a bid to win a court case against the Victorian Government over its decision to not allow asbestos-tainted insulation to be installed on residential buildings in Victoria.
Key points:Lawyer representing the video provider says the decision to install insulation on its buildings is contrary to its values as an organisationThe company says the ruling will damage its reputation and tarnish its brand as an independent legal firmThe Victorian Government has defended the decision, saying it has been made in the public interest, and will be able to rebuild the community if it so chooses.
Key Points:A lawyer representing the company says installing insulation on the buildings was a decision made in a public interestThe company’s CEO has said the decision will damage the company’s reputation and “undermine the reputation of a small business”The video provider, InBev Australia, said it would appeal the court decision, which was handed down by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In a statement, CEO and founder David Hetherington said the company has not decided on any appeal options.
“This case will have a significant and lasting impact on our business,” he said.
“It will affect our reputation and the reputation that InBef has with the community.”
InBev’s decision was a public-interest decision made by a court in the interest of protecting public health and protecting the public’s health.
“The case was brought by the Legal Aid NSW Legal Service on behalf of the Victorian Attorney-General’s Department.
Mr Hetherton said the government would be able “to rebuild the Melbourne community if that is what it wants”.”
We believe that the public health impacts of asbestos removal, as well as the public benefits to our business, outweigh any financial impact of this decision,” he added.
The court case came after a review of the asbestos insulation regulations in Victoria found that the Victorian Building Regulations 2016 were unconstitutional.”
There is nothing in the regulations that says they should not have been amended,” Justice Stephen Hill said in his decision.”
If the building codes were to be changed to require asbestos insulation, the Commonwealth would have no say over which regulations were applied.
“Topics:law-crime-and-justice,courts-and,australiaFirst posted May 23, 2020 11:15:32Contact Paul Balsillie