Inspector Ruth Buggy v Lyco Industries Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 298

Inspector Ruth Buggy v Lyco Industries Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 298

The machine was unsafe because, even with the guard in the proper operating position, the design did not prevent a person other than the operator from coming into contact with the falling 600 lb hammer, with catastrophic consequences. The information supplied was inadequate because the manual gave confusing directions about the guard, did not warn on the machine itself of the falling hammer risk, and did not address the safety of others near the hammer. The supply occurred in New South Wales because 'supplies' in s 18 denoted physical delivery or possession by Kentan at Hexham, not deemed delivery to a carrier in Victoria. In any event, the required territorial nexus existed under s 3A of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S 18(1)(a) and S 18(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment After Not Guilty Plea on Whether Offences Were Made Out; Matters Listed for Sentencing
Outcome
Both offences were made out on the evidence; the matters were to be listed for sentencing.
Legal Topics
['supply of Plant for Use at Work' 'machine Guarding' 'adequate Safety Information' 'territorial Nexus' 'reasonably Practicable Defence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['supply of Plant for Use at Work' 'machine Guarding' 'adequate Safety Information' 'territorial Nexus' 'reasonably Practicable Defence']

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 18(1)(a) and S 18(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment After Not Guilty Plea on Whether Offences Were Made Out; Matters Listed for Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hydraulically powered post driving machine was safe and without risks to health when properly used.' 'Whether the defendant provided or arranged adequate information about the machine to ensure its safe use.' 'Whether the machine was supplied in New South Wales for the purposes of s 18 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.' 'Whether s 3A of the Crimes Act 1900 provided a territorial nexus if supply occurred in Victoria.' 'Whether the defendant proved the defence that compliance was not reasonably practicable under s 53(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.']

Ratio Decidendi

The machine was unsafe because, even with the guard in the proper operating position, the design did not prevent a person other than the operator from coming into contact with the falling 600 lb hammer, with catastrophic consequences. The information supplied was inadequate because the manual gave confusing directions about the guard, did not warn on the machine itself of the falling hammer risk, and did not address the safety of others near the hammer. The supply occurred in New South Wales because 'supplies' in s 18 denoted physical delivery or possession by Kentan at Hexham, not deemed delivery to a carrier in Victoria. In any event, the required territorial nexus existed under s 3A of...

Court Disposition

Both offences were made out on the evidence; the matters were to be listed for sentencing.

Orders

  • ['Both offences have been made out on the evidence.' 'The matters will now be listed for sentencing.']