Concrete Constructions Group Ltd v WorkCover Authority of NSW (Insp Dubois) [2000] NSWIRComm 32

Concrete Constructions Group Ltd v WorkCover Authority of NSW (Insp Dubois) [2000] NSWIRComm 32

The summons was valid because it identified the time, place and nature of the alleged s16(1) offence and pleaded the essential factual ingredients with sufficient particularity. The additional words commencing 'in that' merely particularised the alleged failure to ensure that identified non-employees were not exposed to risks to their health or safety; they did not transform the charge into an offence unknown to s16(1). Because the summons was valid, issues about amendment after any limitation period did not need to be determined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Reference Pursuant to S196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 on a Question of Law in Criminal Occupational Health and Safety Proceedings / Full Bench Determination of Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Dismissing a Notice of Motion, and Determination of the Referred Question Whether the Summons Was Invalid
Outcome
Leave to appeal was refused to the extent the appeal was competent; the appeal would otherwise be dismissed. The referred question was answered in the negative, and the summons was found valid in law.
Legal Topics
['validity of Summons' 'offence Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'particulars of Charge' 'leave to Appeal' 'reference on Question of Law' 'amendment of Summons Under S6 of the Supreme Court (summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967' 'limitation Period for Prosecution']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Relations' 'criminal Procedure'] ['validity of Summons' 'offence Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'particulars of Charge' 'leave to Appeal' 'reference on Question of Law' 'amendment of Summons Under S6 of the Supreme Court (summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967' 'limitation Period for Prosecution']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Reference Pursuant to S196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 on a Question of Law in Criminal Occupational Health and Safety Proceedings / Full Bench Determination of Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Dismissing a Notice of Motion, and Determination of the Referred Question Whether the Summons Was Invalid

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons should be dismissed as invalid for failing to state correctly an offence under s16 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.' 'Whether words alleging a failure to provide safe systems of work rendered the summons a charge of an offence unknown to s16(1).' 'Whether the summons identified the essential factual ingredients of the alleged offence with sufficient particularity.' 'Whether issues about amendment of the summons after expiration of a limitation period needed to be determined.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was valid because it identified the time, place and nature of the alleged s16(1) offence and pleaded the essential factual ingredients with sufficient particularity. The additional words commencing 'in that' merely particularised the alleged failure to ensure that identified non-employees were not exposed to risks to their health or safety; they did not transform the charge into an offence unknown to s16(1). Because the summons was valid, issues about amendment after any limitation period did not need to be determined.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal was refused to the extent the appeal was competent; the appeal would otherwise be dismissed. The referred question was answered in the negative, and the summons was found valid in law.

Orders

  • ['To the extent that the appeal is competent, which we do not decide, we would not grant leave to appeal and would otherwise dismiss the appeal.' 'In relation to the reference and, in particular, the question raised therein, we answer it in the negative thereby finding that the summons is valid in law.' "The...