Inspector Schultz v Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 165

Inspector Schultz v Leonard J Williams (Timber) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 165

The offence warranted a mid-range penalty because the defendant recognised the existence and extent of the risk but relied on the workers' bush experience instead of taking effective steps to alleviate or eliminate it, and the communication and work system between the skidder operator and tree feller broke down. The defendant's lack of prior safety record, cooperation, remedial measures and other subjective features were taken into account, but its financial position did not justify any substantial discount. A penalty of 25% of the $550,000 maximum, namely $137,500, was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S.16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment as to Penalty After the Charge Had Been Proven
Outcome
The defendant was convicted and fined $137,500, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.
Legal Topics
['penalty Assessment' 'safe System of Work' 'financial State of Defendant' 'subjective Features' 'section 16(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law'] ['penalty Assessment' 'safe System of Work' 'financial State of Defendant' 'subjective Features' 'section 16(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983']

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 S.16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment as to Penalty After the Charge Had Been Proven

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for the proven offence under s.16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.' "Whether the defendant's financial position justified a substantial discount on penalty." "How the defendant's subjective features, including no prior work safety record, cooperation and remedial steps, affected penalty." 'Whether the offence should be assessed by reference to its objective seriousness, including that the risk was recognised but not effectively addressed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence warranted a mid-range penalty because the defendant recognised the existence and extent of the risk but relied on the workers' bush experience instead of taking effective steps to alleviate or eliminate it, and the communication and work system between the skidder operator and tree feller broke down. The defendant's lack of prior safety record, cooperation, remedial measures and other subjective features were taken into account, but its financial position did not justify any substantial discount. A penalty of 25% of the $550,000 maximum, namely $137,500, was appropriate.

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted and fined $137,500, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted.' 'The defendant is fined the sum of $137,500, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.' "The defendant should meet the prosecutor's costs in a sum as might be agreed." 'Should there be no agreement on costs, liberty to apply is granted.']