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.
Parties
Rodney Dale Morrison
Prosecutor
Eureka Opals Pty Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment