SafeWork NSW v Building Maintenance Unit Service Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 16

SafeWork NSW v Building Maintenance Unit Service Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 16

The offender's breach was objectively serious because the risk was reasonably foreseeable and actually known, the overdue major inspection was simple and inexpensive, more than one worker was exposed to a risk including death, and both workers suffered substantial permanent injuries. Although the offender had strong mitigating factors and limited capacity to pay, the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence required a substantial fine, discounted by 25% for the guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Work Health and Safety Prosecution / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $300,000 after a 25% discount for the plea of guilty.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'building Maintenance Unit' 'work at Heights' '10 Year Major Inspection' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'capacity to Pay a Fine' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'building Maintenance Unit' 'work at Heights' '10 Year Major Inspection' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'capacity to Pay a Fine' 'prosecution Costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Work Health and Safety Prosecution / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the offender's breach of sections 19(2) and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 after a plea of guilty." 'Whether the offence involved substantial injury, harm and loss as an aggravating factor.' 'What weight should be given to mitigating factors including no previous convictions, low risk of reoffending, rehabilitation, remorse, guilty plea and cooperation.' "Whether the offender's limited capacity to pay justified reducing the fine."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's breach was objectively serious because the risk was reasonably foreseeable and actually known, the overdue major inspection was simple and inexpensive, more than one worker was exposed to a risk including death, and both workers suffered substantial permanent injuries. Although the offender had strong mitigating factors and limited capacity to pay, the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence required a substantial fine, discounted by 25% for the guilty plea.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $300,000 after a 25% discount for the plea of guilty.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'I have taken into account the VIS.' 'The appropriate fine is one of $400,000 which will be reduced by 25% to give effect to the plea of guilty.' 'I impose a fine of $300,000.' 'I order pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "The...