Inspector Schultz v Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 286

Inspector Schultz v Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 286

The defendant failed to institute sufficient supervision and systems of work, instead relying solely on the experience of its workers and giving only general directions. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the risk to the contract feller arose from the conduct of the defendant’s undertaking and from the absence of specific safety systems and adequate supervision. The defendant failed to make out the defence under s53(b) as practicable measures could have been taken to prevent the accident. Offence under s16(1) proved.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Arthur Schultz; Defendant: Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 S16(1) / Conviction After Plea of Not Guilty
Outcome
Defendant convicted of the offence under s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.
Legal Topics
Employer Duties, Workplace Accident, Supervision, Workplace Safety, Defences Under Oh&s Legislation
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Employer Duties Workplace Accident Supervision Workplace Safety Defences Under Oh&s Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Arthur Schultz

Prosecutor

Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 S16(1) / Conviction After Plea of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 by failing to ensure non-employees were not exposed to health or safety risks arising from the conduct of its undertaking.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant could rely on the defence in s53(b) of the Act that the offence was due to causes beyond its control and against which it was impracticable to make provision.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to institute sufficient supervision and systems of work, instead relying solely on the experience of its workers and giving only general directions. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the risk to the contract feller arose from the conduct of the defendant’s undertaking and from the absence of specific safety systems and adequate supervision. The defendant failed to make out the defence under s53(b) as practicable measures could have been taken to prevent the accident. Offence under s16(1) proved.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted of the offence under s16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.