WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Woodington) v Australand Holdings Limited and Sassall Glass and Joinery Pty Limited [2008] NSWIRComm 223

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Woodington) v Australand Holdings Limited and Sassall Glass and Joinery Pty Limited [2008] NSWIRComm 223

The Court held that both offences were above the mid range and towards the upper end of objective seriousness because the work involved foreseeable risks from installing heavy curtain wall panels at height with a crane, inadequate fall protection, inaccurate communication of panel weights, and lifting beyond the crane's certified working load limit. Although Australand and Sassall were less culpable than Skyrise and Mr Vullo, their statutory obligations required them to ensure the risks to Skyrise employees were properly addressed by safe work methods. General deterrence applied to both defendants; specific deterrence applied to Australand but not Sassall because Sassall was no longer...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment as to Penalty After Offences Were Found Proved
Outcome
Both defendants were found guilty and penalised.
Legal Topics
['penalty Determination' 'objective Seriousness' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'victim Impact Statement' 'work at Heights' 'safe System of Work']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['penalty Determination' 'objective Seriousness' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'victim Impact Statement' 'work at Heights' 'safe System of Work']

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 / Judgment as to Penalty After Offences Were Found Proved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on each defendant for offences under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'How the objective seriousness of each offence should be assessed, including foreseeability of the risks arising from crane use, panel weight, working at heights and fall protection.' 'How the relative culpability of Australand and Sassall compared with Skyrise Installations Pty Limited and Domenico Hans Christian Vullo.' 'Whether general deterrence and specific deterrence were relevant to each defendant.' 'What mitigating subjective factors, including cooperation, safety record, remedial action, remorse and Sassall no longer trading, should affect penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that both offences were above the mid range and towards the upper end of objective seriousness because the work involved foreseeable risks from installing heavy curtain wall panels at height with a crane, inadequate fall protection, inaccurate communication of panel weights, and lifting beyond the crane's certified working load limit. Although Australand and Sassall were less culpable than Skyrise and Mr Vullo, their statutory obligations required them to ensure the risks to Skyrise employees were properly addressed by safe work methods. General deterrence applied to both defendants; specific deterrence applied to Australand but not Sassall because Sassall was no longer...

Court Disposition

Both defendants were found guilty and penalised.

Orders

  • ['In Matter No IRC 1174 of 2005, Australand Holdings Limited is guilty of the offence charged.' 'Australand Holdings Limited is to pay a penalty of $175,000.' 'A moiety is allocated to the prosecutor on the usual terms in relation to Australand Holdings Limited.' 'In Matter No IRC 1175 of 2005, Sassall Glass and...