WorkCover Authority of New South Wales v JMW Developments Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 259

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales v JMW Developments Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 259

The defendant, as head or principal contractor, breached its work health and safety duty by failing to have an appropriate safe system in place and failing to follow requirements concerning work near live overhead power lines. The risk of electric shock or electrocution from handling metal objects near live wires was readily foreseeable, and measures such as de-energising the power line, installing a physical barrier, using a spotter, or using tiger tails were available. Although the offence was of considerable objective seriousness, the defendant's early guilty plea, co-operation with WorkCover, remorse, lack of prior convictions, good corporate standing, and improved systems justified a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted and fined $75,000, with a moiety to the prosecution, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's agreed costs of $14,000.
Legal Topics
['guilty Plea' 'electric Shock on Construction Site' 'head Contractor Duties' 'safe Work Method Statement' 'risk Assessment and Control Measures' 'work Near Overhead Power Lines' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'costs on Sentence']
['work Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['guilty Plea' 'electric Shock on Construction Site' 'head Contractor Duties' 'safe Work Method Statement' 'risk Assessment and Control Measures' 'work Near Overhead Power Lines' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'costs on Sentence']

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 Prosecution Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's failure to comply with its duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, contrary to s 32." 'Whether the risk of injury and its consequences were foreseeable and preventable.' 'Whether mitigating factors including no prior convictions, good corporate standing, remorse, early guilty plea and co-operation should reduce penalty.' 'Whether the parity principle should be applied by reference to the penalty imposed on Ultra Group Pty Ltd.' "Whether the prosecutor's costs may be taken into account in assessing penalty."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as head or principal contractor, breached its work health and safety duty by failing to have an appropriate safe system in place and failing to follow requirements concerning work near live overhead power lines. The risk of electric shock or electrocution from handling metal objects near live wires was readily foreseeable, and measures such as de-energising the power line, installing a physical barrier, using a spotter, or using tiger tails were available. Although the offence was of considerable objective seriousness, the defendant's early guilty plea, co-operation with WorkCover, remorse, lack of prior convictions, good corporate standing, and improved systems justified a...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined $75,000, with a moiety to the prosecution, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's agreed costs of $14,000.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted and fined the sum of $75,000 with a moiety to the prosecution.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs agreed in the sum of $14,000."]