Inspector David Singh v ABB Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWIRComm 62

Inspector David Singh v ABB Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWIRComm 62

ABB breached s 8(2) because, despite knowing that CES personnel would attend the site and that Mr McCormack would work in the roof area, it failed to follow its own induction and job safety analysis procedures, failed to make sufficient inquiry into the work to be performed, failed to give specific warnings or restrictions about live electrical wires and fall risks, and failed to implement reasonably practicable controls. Warning signs and the presence of handrails did not ensure safety or negate causation, and ABB did not establish the s 28 defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With Alternative Prosecution Under S 10(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment on Liability Before Penalty
Outcome
Breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 established; alternative s 10(1) charge not considered; matter to proceed to penalty.
Legal Topics
['duty to Non Employees at a Place of Work' 'working at Heights' 'live Electrical Wires' 'safety Induction' 'job Safety Analysis' 'reasonably Practicable Defence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'workplace Safety' 'industrial Law'] ['duty to Non Employees at a Place of Work' 'working at Heights' 'live Electrical Wires' 'safety Induction' 'job Safety Analysis' 'reasonably Practicable Defence']

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

Prosecution Under S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With Alternative Prosecution Under S 10(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment on Liability Before Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant failed to ensure that persons not in its employment, in particular Steven McCormack, were not exposed to risks to health or safety arising from the conduct of the defendant's undertaking while at its place of work." 'Whether the defendant failed to adequately restrict access to dangerous areas including overhead cranes and areas near live electrical wires.' 'Whether the defendant failed to provide adequate information and instruction about overhead cranes, work at heights and live electrical wires.' 'Whether the defendant established a defence under s 28 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'Whether the alternative s 10(1) charge needed to be considered.']

Ratio Decidendi

ABB breached s 8(2) because, despite knowing that CES personnel would attend the site and that Mr McCormack would work in the roof area, it failed to follow its own induction and job safety analysis procedures, failed to make sufficient inquiry into the work to be performed, failed to give specific warnings or restrictions about live electrical wires and fall risks, and failed to implement reasonably practicable controls. Warning signs and the presence of handrails did not ensure safety or negate causation, and ABB did not establish the s 28 defence.

Court Disposition

Breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 established; alternative s 10(1) charge not considered; matter to proceed to penalty.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to contact the Associate within fourteen days to arrange a suitable date for the hearing of evidence and submissions on penalty.']