Inspector Dennis Howard v Multiplex Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 229

Inspector Dennis Howard v Multiplex Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 229

The defendant, as head contractor, was guilty of a serious breach of s16(1) because it knew that level 3 of the link bridge posed a fall risk, knew subcontractor employees needed access to perform work near the void, and failed to ensure that the subcontractor followed a safe system of work, that open voids were properly fenced, that fall protection was used, and that adequate information about access was given. The subcontractor employees' unsafe conduct marginally reduced culpability, but the foreseeable risk and failure to act when on notice warranted a substantial penalty, reduced by 25 per cent for the early guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment on Penalty After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant found guilty and fined $175,000, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority; defendant ordered to pay prosecution's agreed costs of $13,500.
Legal Topics
['head Contractor Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'fall From Height' 'subcontractor Worksite Safety' 'penalty After Guilty Plea']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Relations'] ['head Contractor Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'fall From Height' 'subcontractor Worksite Safety' 'penalty After Guilty Plea']

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 / Judgment on Penalty After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to ensure that persons not in its employment were not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of its undertaking at its place of work.' 'How serious the breach was and what penalty should be imposed, taking into account the conduct of subcontractor employees, foreseeability, prior record, deterrence and the guilty plea.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as head contractor, was guilty of a serious breach of s16(1) because it knew that level 3 of the link bridge posed a fall risk, knew subcontractor employees needed access to perform work near the void, and failed to ensure that the subcontractor followed a safe system of work, that open voids were properly fenced, that fall protection was used, and that adequate information about access was given. The subcontractor employees' unsafe conduct marginally reduced culpability, but the foreseeable risk and failure to act when on notice warranted a substantial penalty, reduced by 25 per cent for the early guilty plea.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty and fined $175,000, with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority; defendant ordered to pay prosecution's agreed costs of $13,500.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is found guilty.' 'The defendant is fined in the sum of $175,000 with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.' "The defendant is ordered to pay the prosecution's costs as agreed at $13,500."]