Rodney Morrison v Bradley Dean Murray & Ors [2005] NSWIRComm 241

Rodney Morrison v Bradley Dean Murray & Ors [2005] NSWIRComm 241

The Court refused the prosecutor's application to further argue whether the Memorandum of 3/4 May 2001 constituted the requisite written consent for prosecution, on the basis that the matter had been dealt with fully in the primary judgment, all evidence was closed, and the Full Bench reference did not remit the consent issue for fresh determination.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rodney Morrison; First Defendant: Bradley Dean Murray; Second Defendant: Michael John Barrett; Third Defendant: Powercoal Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: David Glen Coutts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Post Judgment Application After Full Bench Reference
Outcome
Application to reconsider effect of Memorandum refused; opportunity given for further application to be filed and heard on a future date.
Legal Topics
Consent to Prosecution, Reconsideration of Evidence
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Consent to Prosecution Reconsideration of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Morrison

Prosecutor

Bradley Dean Murray

First Defendant

Michael John Barrett

Second Defendant

Powercoal Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

David Glen Coutts

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Post Judgment Application After Full Bench Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memorandum dated 3/4 May 2001 satisfied the legal requirement for Director-General's written consent to prosecute under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether the Memorandum perfected a condition contained in the March Memorandum

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the prosecutor's application to further argue whether the Memorandum of 3/4 May 2001 constituted the requisite written consent for prosecution, on the basis that the matter had been dealt with fully in the primary judgment, all evidence was closed, and the Full Bench reference did not remit the consent issue for fresh determination.

Court Disposition

Application to reconsider effect of Memorandum refused; opportunity given for further application to be filed and heard on a future date.