WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Belley) v Steven Carl Akerman [2006] NSWIRComm 353

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Belley) v Steven Carl Akerman [2006] NSWIRComm 353

Because the defendant was properly served, was a director of Akerman-Apache (Joint Venture) Pty Limited at the relevant time, and the corporation had contravened s 10(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant was taken by s 26(1) to have contravened the same provision. The evidence did not establish the particular alleging that he failed to act after becoming aware that the trailer braking system was inadequate, but the remaining particulars were proved and there was no evidence supporting either statutory defence under s 26(1)(a) or s 26(1)(b).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Pursuant to S 10(2) and by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Ex Parte Determination After No Appearance by Defendant
Outcome
Offence proved, except for particularised failure (iii), which was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'service Outside Australia' 'proceeding in Absence of Accused' 'plant Safety' 'statutory Defences Under S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Procedure'] ['director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'service Outside Australia' 'proceeding in Absence of Accused' 'plant Safety' 'statutory Defences Under S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000']

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 Pursuant to S 10(2) and by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Ex Parte Determination After No Appearance by Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant had been properly served so that the Court could proceed in his absence.' 'Whether the defendant was at the relevant time a director of Akerman-Apache (Joint Venture) Pty Limited.' "Whether, by virtue of s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant was taken to have contravened s 10(2) following the corporation's contravention." "Whether the offence was proved, including the pleaded particulars of the corporation's failures concerning the trailer, truck and mud plant." 'Whether the defendant could rely on the statutory defences in s 26(1)(a) or s 26(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant was properly served, was a director of Akerman-Apache (Joint Venture) Pty Limited at the relevant time, and the corporation had contravened s 10(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, the defendant was taken by s 26(1) to have contravened the same provision. The evidence did not establish the particular alleging that he failed to act after becoming aware that the trailer braking system was inadequate, but the remaining particulars were proved and there was no evidence supporting either statutory defence under s 26(1)(a) or s 26(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Offence proved, except for particularised failure (iii), which was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to proceed against the defendant on an ex parte basis.' 'The Court found that the defendant contravened s 10(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by virtue of s 26(1), with the exception of particularised failure (iii).']