Inspector McCarthy (nee Shaw) v Siva Kumaran Mathiaparanam [2015] NSWDC 16

Inspector McCarthy (nee Shaw) v Siva Kumaran Mathiaparanam [2015] NSWDC 16

The company had contravened s 8 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant was a director of the company, and he failed to satisfy the court that he used all due diligence to prevent the company's contravention; accordingly, by s 26(1), he was taken to have contravened s 8(1) and was guilty as charged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Defendant found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.
Legal Topics
['director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'employer Duty to Ensure Health, Safety and Welfare at Work' 'due Diligence Defence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Law'] ['director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'employer Duty to Ensure Health, Safety and Welfare at Work' 'due Diligence 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

Criminal Prosecution for Contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, by operation of s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant as a director of Siva & Jeya Pty Ltd was taken to have contravened s 8(1).' "Whether the defendant satisfied the court that he used all due diligence to prevent the company's contravention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The company had contravened s 8 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant was a director of the company, and he failed to satisfy the court that he used all due diligence to prevent the company's contravention; accordingly, by s 26(1), he was taken to have contravened s 8(1) and was guilty as charged.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.

Orders

  • ['I find the defendant guilty as charged and he is convicted accordingly.']