Inspector Davidson v Williams [2009] NSWIRComm 64

Inspector Davidson v Williams [2009] NSWIRComm 64

The corporation breached s 8(1) by failing to provide a safe system of work, training, and supervision, and thereby placed Kevin Butler at risk, resulting in his death. As director, Russell Alan Williams was liable under s 26(1), since the requisite training and supervision were not provided and he did not discharge his due diligence obligations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2009
Procedural Posture
OHS Prosecution / Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing
Outcome
Guilty and convicted
Legal Topics
['director Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'employee Training' 'supervision' 'deterrence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Law'] ['director Liability' 'safe System of Work' 'employee Training' 'supervision' 'deterrence']

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

OHS Prosecution / Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Russell Alan Williams, as director, was liable for breach of s 26(1) of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 due to corporation's contravention of s 8(1)" 'Whether the corporation failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work, proper training, and supervision to employees, specifically Kevin Butler']

Ratio Decidendi

The corporation breached s 8(1) by failing to provide a safe system of work, training, and supervision, and thereby placed Kevin Butler at risk, resulting in his death. As director, Russell Alan Williams was liable under s 26(1), since the requisite training and supervision were not provided and he did not discharge his due diligence obligations.

Court Disposition

Guilty and convicted

Orders

  • ['The defendant is found guilty and convicted.' 'A monetary penalty of $20,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor is imposed.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs as assessed by the Court in default of agreement."]