Inspector Nicholson v Mackey [2010] NSWIRComm 159

Inspector Nicholson v Mackey [2010] NSWIRComm 159

Based on the evidence, NT Prestressing Pty Ltd breached s 8(1) by failing to ensure employee health, safety, and welfare at the workplace. Phillip Mackey, as director, is prima facie found guilty by operation of s 26, but the proceedings are stood over to consider the defence under s 26(1)(a).

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Anthony Nicholson; Defendant: Phillip Mackey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Stood Over for Further Hearing Regarding Possible Defence or Penalty
Outcome
proceedings stood over for further hearing
Legal Topics
Liability of Directors, Safety Procedures, Risk Assessment, Undefended Proceedings
Occupational Health and Safety Liability of Directors Safety Procedures Risk Assessment Undefended Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Anthony Nicholson

Prosecutor

Phillip Mackey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Stood Over for Further Hearing Regarding Possible Defence or Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether NT Prestressing Pty Ltd breached s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether Phillip Mackey as director is liable for the corporation’s contravention by operation of s 26
  3. 3 Whether the defence under s 26(1)(a) applies due to alleged non-residency and lack of involvement

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the evidence, NT Prestressing Pty Ltd breached s 8(1) by failing to ensure employee health, safety, and welfare at the workplace. Phillip Mackey, as director, is prima facie found guilty by operation of s 26, but the proceedings are stood over to consider the defence under s 26(1)(a).

Court Disposition

proceedings stood over for further hearing

Orders

  • The proceedings are stood over to allow further submissions concerning the availability of the defence under s 26(1)(a) and/or appropriate penalty.