Safe Work (NSW v Activate Fire PL; Safe Work (NSW) v Unity (NSW) P/L [2016] NSWDC 440

Safe Work (NSW v Activate Fire PL; Safe Work (NSW) v Unity (NSW) P/L [2016] NSWDC 440

Time was extended because Mr Wells' evidence was probative and required for the prosecution to properly put its case on the pleaded issue of whether isolation of power was reasonably practicable, and any prejudice to the defendants from late service could be cured by directions, particularly because the issue was pleaded, the brief contained material putting the defendants on notice, Unity had actual knowledge of the later work, further investigation could occur before the resumed trial, and costs could be addressed at the end of the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for an Offence Contrary to Section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Late Service and Calling of Proof of Evidence From Peter Wells
Outcome
Time extended for service of Peter Wells' proof of evidence; Mr Wells not to be called until the resumed trial; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['workplace Injury Prosecution' 'late Service of Prosecution Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'extension of Time Under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 S.188']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'evidence'] ['workplace Injury Prosecution' 'late Service of Prosecution Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'extension of Time Under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 S.188']

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

Criminal Prosecution for an Offence Contrary to Section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Late Service and Calling of Proof of Evidence From Peter Wells

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecutor should be permitted to rely on and call evidence from Peter Wells after the prosecution brief of evidence had been served.' "Whether any prejudice to the defendants from late service of Mr Wells' proof of evidence could be cured by directions." "Whether Mr Wells' evidence was probative and important to the pleaded issue of whether it was reasonably practicable to isolate power to the administration area before work commenced."]

Ratio Decidendi

Time was extended because Mr Wells' evidence was probative and required for the prosecution to properly put its case on the pleaded issue of whether isolation of power was reasonably practicable, and any prejudice to the defendants from late service could be cured by directions, particularly because the issue was pleaded, the brief contained material putting the defendants on notice, Unity had actual knowledge of the later work, further investigation could occur before the resumed trial, and costs could be addressed at the end of the trial.

Court Disposition

Time extended for service of Peter Wells' proof of evidence; Mr Wells not to be called until the resumed trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['I extend time to serve the proof of evidence of Peter Wells by the prosecutor to 29 November 2016.' 'I direct that Mr Wells not be called until the trial resumes at a date to be fixed at the end of the time presently allocated to it.' 'I reserve any question of costs relating to this issue to the end of the trial.']