Inspector Doug Rolland v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWIRComm 126

Inspector Doug Rolland v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWIRComm 126

The original Application for Order contained all essential legal elements necessary to plead an offence under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, including the status of the defendant as employer, identification of a risk, a causal nexus, and the relevant workplace and employees. Particularisation...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion (application to Amend Pleading and Application to Dismiss)
Outcome
Prosecutor's Notice of Motion to amend the Application for Order allowed; Defendant's Notice of Motion to dismiss/quash Application dismissed; Costs of defendant on prosecutor's Notice of Motion reserved; No order as to costs on defendant's Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
['pleadings and Particularisation' 'notice of Motion' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'jurisdiction' 'costs' "employer's Duties"]
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['pleadings and Particularisation' 'notice of Motion' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'jurisdiction' 'costs' "employer's Duties"]

Source-derived case record

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Notices of Motion (application to Amend Pleading and Application to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Application for Order sufficiently pleaded the offence under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000' 'Whether the prosecutor should be allowed to amend the Application for Order to further particularise the acts/omissions' 'Whether the proceedings and orders were invalid by reason of insufficient particularity' 'Entitlement to costs at the interlocutory stage']

Ratio Decidendi

The original Application for Order contained all essential legal elements necessary to plead an offence under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, including the status of the defendant as employer, identification of a risk, a causal nexus, and the relevant workplace and employees. Particularisation may be added before trial. The lack of original specificity did not invalidate the proceedings or the court's jurisdiction. It was in the interests of justice to allow the prosecutor to amend the Application for Order to include further particulars.

Court Disposition

Prosecutor's Notice of Motion to amend the Application for Order allowed; Defendant's Notice of Motion to dismiss/quash Application dismissed; Costs of defendant on prosecutor's Notice of Motion reserved; No order as to costs on defendant's Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed by the prosecutor is allowed.' 'The Notice of Motion filed by the defendant is dismissed.' "Costs of the defendant of the prosecutor's Notice of Motion are reserved." "No order as to costs on the defendant's Notice of Motion."]