Rodney Dale Morrison v Eureka Opals Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 80

Rodney Dale Morrison v Eureka Opals Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 80

The evidence did not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that Eureka Opals Pty Limited had any practical ability to control Claim 26313 or compel corrective action for safety. For all practical purposes, Peter Buchanan exercised sole control of the claim. Thus, the element of control required by s 17(1)(a) was not satisfied, and the charge must be dismissed.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rodney Dale Morrison; Defendant: Eureka Opals Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment
Outcome
summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Control of Premises, Absolute Liability, Mineral Claims, Workplace Safety

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Dale Morrison

Prosecutor

Eureka Opals Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant Eureka Opals Pty Limited had to any extent control of Claim 26313 (non-domestic premises) for purposes of s 17(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983
  2. 2 Whether Eureka Opals Pty Limited failed to ensure Claim 26313 was safe and without risk to health

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that Eureka Opals Pty Limited had any practical ability to control Claim 26313 or compel corrective action for safety. For all practical purposes, Peter Buchanan exercised sole control of the claim. Thus, the element of control required by s 17(1)(a) was not satisfied, and the charge must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons to be dismissed. Costs to be determined.