Inspector Mulder v Built Environs Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 307

Inspector Mulder v Built Environs Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 307

The defendant failed to provide adequate safety measures (e.g., guard rails) to prevent the fall of a non-employee subcontractor, thus breaching its statutory duty under s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. Taking into account objective seriousness, absence of prior convictions, early plea, remedial steps, and the company's safety history, a discounted penalty is appropriate.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector John Mulder; Defendant: Built Environs Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Conviction and Sentencing After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
conviction and fine after plea of guilty
Legal Topics
Employer Duties to Non Employees, Workplace Injury, Sentencing for OHS Offences
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Employer Duties to Non Employees Workplace Injury Sentencing for OHS Offences

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector John Mulder

Prosecutor

Built Environs Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Conviction and Sentencing After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to ensure that persons not in its employment were not exposed to health or safety risks at its place of work in contravention of s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty in light of objective and subjective factors

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide adequate safety measures (e.g., guard rails) to prevent the fall of a non-employee subcontractor, thus breaching its statutory duty under s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. Taking into account objective seriousness, absence of prior convictions, early plea, remedial steps, and the company's safety history, a discounted penalty is appropriate.

Court Disposition

conviction and fine after plea of guilty

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the offence.
  • The defendant is fined $26,000, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.