HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2022] NSWCCA 212

HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2022] NSWCCA 212

The cranage work conducted by Mr Dessens, a labour hire worker assigned to HD Projects, was sufficiently part of the conduct of HD Projects' business within s 19(2) of the WHS Act, making the company responsible for ensuring the health and safety of 'other persons' at the site. The imputation of conduct via s 244...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: HD Projects Pty Ltd; Respondent: SafeWork NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Health and Safety Duty, Liability of Principal and Labour Hire, Scope of 'business or Undertaking', Imputing Conduct to Corporations
Criminal Law Work Health and Safety Breach of Health and Safety Duty Liability of Principal and Labour Hire Scope of 'business or Undertaking' Imputing Conduct to Corporations

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HD Projects Pty Ltd

Appellant

SafeWork NSW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'cranage' work of a labour hire worker was part of the conduct of the appellant’s business for s 19(2) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether injured non-HD Projects workers were 'other persons' under s 19(2)
  3. 3 Whether Mr Dessens' conduct could be imputed to the appellant via s 244 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The cranage work conducted by Mr Dessens, a labour hire worker assigned to HD Projects, was sufficiently part of the conduct of HD Projects' business within s 19(2) of the WHS Act, making the company responsible for ensuring the health and safety of 'other persons' at the site. The imputation of conduct via s 244 was unnecessary: the facts established Mr Dessens’ work was supervised by HD Projects and integral to its panel installation contract. The injured workers were properly characterised as 'other persons' and not as HD Projects’ 'workers'. All five grounds of appeal failed; the conviction was supported by the factual findings and a material miscarriage of justice was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.