Linnane (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) v Cummings [2020] NSWDC 587

Linnane (NSW Department of Planning and Environment) v Cummings [2020] NSWDC 587

The defendant, as a person conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the hoist, failed to implement reasonably practicable engineering controls to prevent the risk of the bucket free falling in overspool conditions, thereby breaching s 21 duty and exposing workers to a risk of death or serious injury; this was a significant cause of exposure to the pleaded risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of s 32 offence relating to breach of s 21 of the Act
Legal Topics
['management or Control of Plant' 'statutory Duty' 'engineering Controls' 'reasonably Practicable Modifications' 'exposure to Risk' 'workplace Safety']
['employment and Industrial Law' 'work Health and Safety'] ['management or Control of Plant' 'statutory Duty' 'engineering Controls' 'reasonably Practicable Modifications' 'exposure to Risk' 'workplace Safety']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant have management or control of the hoist installed at the mine?' 'Was the defendant a supplier of the hoist at the mine?' 'Did the defendant breach the health and safety duties owed by failing to take steps particularised in the Summonses?' "Did the defendant's breach of duty expose Mr Siegel to a risk of death or serious injury?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as a person conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the hoist, failed to implement reasonably practicable engineering controls to prevent the risk of the bucket free falling in overspool conditions, thereby breaching s 21 duty and exposing workers to a risk of death or serious injury; this was a significant cause of exposure to the pleaded risk.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of s 32 offence relating to breach of s 21 of the Act

Orders

  • ['Defendant found guilty of first charge under s 32 for breach of s 21 Work Health and Safety Act 2011']