Inspector Rowe v Eagle Eye Traffic Services Aust Pty Ltd [2010] NSWIRComm 31

Inspector Rowe v Eagle Eye Traffic Services Aust Pty Ltd [2010] NSWIRComm 31

Each defendant, being a principal contractor, subcontractor, or traffic services contractor, had a duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to ensure health and safety for employees and non-employees. Each failed to assess, communicate, and control the risk posed by moving vehicles/plant on site, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual fatality. All are guilty and equally culpable, warranting equal penalty subject to mitigation for early guilty pleas and cooperation.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Andrew Rowe; Defendant: Eagle Eye Traffic Services Aust Pty Ltd; Defendant: Nace Civil Engineering Pty Limited; Defendant: Borthwick & Pengilly Asphalts Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution (occupational Health and Safety) / Sentencing Decision After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Defendants found guilty on plea; fines imposed; costs order made.
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Multiple Contractors, Vehicle Safety, Sentencing Principles, Parity, Deterrence
Occupational Health and Safety Criminal Law Sentencing Workplace Safety Duty of Care Risk Assessment Multiple Contractors Vehicle Safety +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Andrew Rowe

Prosecutor

Eagle Eye Traffic Services Aust Pty Ltd

Defendant

Nace Civil Engineering Pty Limited

Defendant

Borthwick & Pengilly Asphalts Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution (occupational Health and Safety) / Sentencing Decision After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether each defendant breached its respective duty under s 8(1) or s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by failing to ensure health and safety at the workplace, resulting in a fatality.
  2. 2 What penalty is appropriate, taking into account objective seriousness, subjective factors, deterrence, parity, and ability to pay.

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant, being a principal contractor, subcontractor, or traffic services contractor, had a duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to ensure health and safety for employees and non-employees. Each failed to assess, communicate, and control the risk posed by moving vehicles/plant on site, resulting in foreseeable risk and actual fatality. All are guilty and equally culpable, warranting equal penalty subject to mitigation for early guilty pleas and cooperation.

Court Disposition

Defendants found guilty on plea; fines imposed; costs order made.

Orders

  • Eagle Eye Traffic Services Aust Pty Ltd fined $120,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.
  • Nace Civil Engineering Pty Limited fined $120,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.