Inspector Michael Dall v Brambles Australia Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 213

Inspector Michael Dall v Brambles Australia Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 213

Despite Brambles Australia Ltd being a controller and failing to ensure safe work methods, permit, and risk assessment, it could not have reasonably foreseen that the subcontractor would conduct the demolition on 19 September 2002 without notification, permit, or proper methodology. The commission of the offence was due to causes beyond its control, and therefore the defence under s28(b) of the OHS Act 2000 was established.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Michael Dall; Defendant: Brambles Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S10(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Final Judgment (after Trial)
Outcome
prosecution dismissed
Legal Topics
Controller Duties, Demolition Permits, Risk Assessment, Contractor Liability
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Controller Duties Demolition Permits Risk Assessment Contractor Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Michael Dall

Prosecutor

Brambles Australia Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution Under S10(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Final Judgment (after Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brambles Australia Ltd was a 'controller' under s10 of the OHS Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether Brambles Australia Ltd failed to ensure safe premises and safe work system for demolition
  3. 3 Whether the defence under s28 OHS Act 2000 was established

Ratio Decidendi

Despite Brambles Australia Ltd being a controller and failing to ensure safe work methods, permit, and risk assessment, it could not have reasonably foreseen that the subcontractor would conduct the demolition on 19 September 2002 without notification, permit, or proper methodology. The commission of the offence was due to causes beyond its control, and therefore the defence under s28(b) of the OHS Act 2000 was established.

Court Disposition

prosecution dismissed

Orders

  • In the application of s28 of the Act, the defence is established.
  • The charge in Matter No IRC5608 of 2004 is dismissed.