Aaron and Ben are the directors of Luxury Reef Cruises Pty Ltd ('Luxury'). The main business of the company involves taking tourists out to the Great Barrier Reef for cruises and snorkelling. In the middle of the summer tourist season, a ship owned by Gold Coast Transport Ltd ('Transport') ran aground on the reef. It was several days before the ship could be removed from the reef and the damage assessed. During this time, Luxury could not operate cruises in the area and lost revenue as a result. Aaron and Ben are considering bringing an action against Transport for damages to compensate Luxury for lost revenue. In addition, damage was done to the reef. Dean, the authorised officer in charge of the investigation into the accident, is considering whether charges should be laid under s 24A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) for action that has a significant impact on the environment, and, if so, against whom these charges should be laid. Initial investigations of how Transport's ship ran aground indicate that the crew of the ship (employees of Transport) had not kept a sufficient watch when they were nearing the reef (there was even a suggestion that the captain was intoxicated at the time). However, Dean also suspects that the ship was understaffed at the time, due to a directive from the managing director of Transport, not to replace any crew who were on leave or who resigned because the company was having cash flow problems. (a) On what bases might the company be liable in tort to Luxury if sued for lost revenue? Should the company be liable in these circumstances? Consider the basic purposes of civil law (compensation and deterrence) in your answer. (b) Should Dean lay charges under s 24A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth)? Against whom should these charges be laid? Consider the basic purposes of criminal law (punishment and deterrence) in your answer.