Inspector Martin Carmody v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited [2004] NSWIRComm 332

Inspector Martin Carmody v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited [2004] NSWIRComm 332

The defendant committed a serious breach of s16(1) because, despite obtaining an exemption from demolition licensing on conditions including supervision by Kelvin Durham and risk assessment with controls, it failed to supervise the gridline P demolition work and relied on inadequate subcontractor documentation that did not specifically address the method of demolition, slinging positions or relevant risks. The risk of a heavy column moving suddenly during demolition was obvious, foreseeable and controllable, and the presence of careless worker conduct made supervision essential rather than excusing the defendant. Taking account of deterrence, the guilty plea, cooperation, remorse and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Penalty After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant fined after plea of guilty.
Legal Topics
['demolition Work' 'demolition Licensing Exemption' 'workplace Supervision' 'risk Assessment' 'work Method Statement' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'deterrence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'sentencing'] ['demolition Work' 'demolition Licensing Exemption' 'workplace Supervision' 'risk Assessment' 'work Method Statement' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'deterrence']

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

Prosecution Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Penalty After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to supervise demolition work at gridline P in accordance with the conditions of its exemption from holding a demolition licence.' 'Whether the defendant failed to ensure that the risks to Allan James Welsh and Lance Grove in the work performed on 12 May 2001 had been adequately assessed or controlled in any risk analysis or work method statement.' 'What penalty should be imposed having regard to the seriousness of the breach, deterrence, the guilty plea and mitigating subjective features.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant committed a serious breach of s16(1) because, despite obtaining an exemption from demolition licensing on conditions including supervision by Kelvin Durham and risk assessment with controls, it failed to supervise the gridline P demolition work and relied on inadequate subcontractor documentation that did not specifically address the method of demolition, slinging positions or relevant risks. The risk of a heavy column moving suddenly during demolition was obvious, foreseeable and controllable, and the presence of careless worker conduct made supervision essential rather than excusing the defendant. Taking account of deterrence, the guilty plea, cooperation, remorse and...

Court Disposition

Defendant fined after plea of guilty.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is fined in the sum of $133,000.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs." 'There will be a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.' 'The Court will hear the parties on costs if no agreement can be reached.']