SafeWork NSW v Astute Earth Works Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 131

SafeWork NSW v Astute Earth Works Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 131

The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the workers were at work in Astute's business or undertaking or that Astute owed them a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. It remained reasonably possible that Ramzi Mohamed, without reward, referred the workers to work for Greater Civil at the site to be directed, supervised and paid by Greater Civil. For the same reason, the Court was not satisfied that the notifiable incident arose in the course of Astute's business or undertaking. Accordingly, the prosecution had not proven all elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Offences Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / After Defended Hearing; Liability Decision Before Final Orders
Outcome
The prosecution has not proven all of the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt; final orders were deferred pending further hearing from the parties.
Legal Topics
['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'employer and Contractor Duties' 'demolition Work' 'work at Heights' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'notifiable Incident' 'recklessness']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'occupational Health and Safety'] ['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'employer and Contractor Duties' 'demolition Work' 'work at Heights' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'notifiable Incident' 'recklessness']

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 Alleged Offences Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / After Defended Hearing; Liability Decision Before Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant owe the workers a health and safety duty pursuant to s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011?' 'Was the defendant reckless as to the risk of death or serious injury to an individual?' "Did the notifiable incident arise out of the conduct of the defendant's business or undertaking for the purposes of s 38 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the workers were at work in Astute's business or undertaking or that Astute owed them a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. It remained reasonably possible that Ramzi Mohamed, without reward, referred the workers to work for Greater Civil at the site to be directed, supervised and paid by Greater Civil. For the same reason, the Court was not satisfied that the notifiable incident arose in the course of Astute's business or undertaking. Accordingly, the prosecution had not proven all elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

The prosecution has not proven all of the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt; final orders were deferred pending further hearing from the parties.

Orders

  • ['The prosecution has not proven all of the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.' 'I will hear from the parties before making final orders.']