Inspector Stephen McMartin v Oakbridge Pty Limited; Inspector Stephen McMartin v Richard Porteous; Phillip Pritchard; Michael Alston; Mark Robinson; Jonathan Romcke; Michael Coffey; Christopher Nicholls; Terence Shacklady [2003] NSWIRComm 214

Inspector Stephen McMartin v Oakbridge Pty Limited; Inspector Stephen McMartin v Richard Porteous; Phillip Pritchard; Michael Alston; Mark Robinson; Jonathan Romcke; Michael Coffey; Christopher Nicholls; Terence Shacklady [2003] NSWIRComm 214

The charges were not statute barred because the proceedings were commenced within two years after the Coroner's report and, on an objective consideration of the Coroner's report and coronial materials, it appeared that Oakbridge's undertaking was actively and relevantly involved in the research, development and ongoing operation of Gretley Colliery, including management and survey functions connected with the risk of inrush. The material therefore made it appear that the conduct of Oakbridge as an undertaking gave rise to the risk relevant to the s16(1) charges, and the associated s50(1) charges against the personal defendants should stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Occupational Health and Safety Prosecutions Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and Associated Charges Under S50(1) / Interlocutory Application by Oakbridge Pty Limited and the Personal Defendants to Dismiss Charges as Statute Barred
Outcome
Applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
['time Limits for Instituting Proceedings' 'coronial Inquest Exception' 'meaning of "appears" in S49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'employer Undertaking and Exposure to Risk' 'corporate and Personal Liability']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Relations' 'criminal Procedure'] ['time Limits for Instituting Proceedings' 'coronial Inquest Exception' 'meaning of "appears" in S49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'employer Undertaking and Exposure to Risk' 'corporate and Personal Liability']

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

Occupational Health and Safety Prosecutions Under S16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and Associated Charges Under S50(1) / Interlocutory Application by Oakbridge Pty Limited and the Personal Defendants to Dismiss Charges as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecutions were barred by the general two-year limitation period in s49(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.' "Whether s49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 permitted proceedings to be instituted within two years of the Coroner's report because it appeared from the coronial report or proceedings that an offence had been committed." 'Whether the word "appears" in s49(4) required a prima facie case or only that it appear or seem from the coronial materials that an offence had been committed.' "Whether the coronial material showed that the mining at Gretley Colliery was part of Oakbridge Pty Limited's undertaking and that there was a causal connection between that undertaking and the risk of inrush." 'Whether the associated s50(1) charges against the personal defendants should stand if the s16(1) charges against Oakbridge were not statute barred.']

Ratio Decidendi

The charges were not statute barred because the proceedings were commenced within two years after the Coroner's report and, on an objective consideration of the Coroner's report and coronial materials, it appeared that Oakbridge's undertaking was actively and relevantly involved in the research, development and ongoing operation of Gretley Colliery, including management and survey functions connected with the risk of inrush. The material therefore made it appear that the conduct of Oakbridge as an undertaking gave rise to the risk relevant to the s16(1) charges, and the associated s50(1) charges against the personal defendants should stand.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applications by the defendants in relation to the matters before the Court are dismissed.']