Agius v Hannaford - [2025] ACTMC 19

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Agius v Hannaford
Citation:	[2025] ACTMC 19
Hearing Date:	29 August 2025
Decision Date:	30 October 2025
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See [49]
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – SENTENCING – judgment and punishment – Work Health and Safety – Category 2 offence – asbestos exposure
Legislation Cited:	Work Health and Safety Act 2011(ACT), ss 19, 32 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (ACT), ss 419, 453, 458 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 57
Cases Cited:	Smithers v Capitol Chilled Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] ACTMC 5 SafeWork NSW v Onsite Rental Group Operations Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 228 SafeWork NSW v Modco Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 565 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) NSWCCA 96 Comcare v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] FCA 662 SafeWork NSW v McConnel Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Limited (No 3) [2021] NSWDC Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 SafeWork NSW v Carricks Plumbing and Gasfitting Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 175 SafeWork NSW v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 580 WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700 Darter v Diden [2006] SASC 152 Mahdi Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178
Parties:	Jacqueline Agius (Informant) Benjamin Hannaford ( Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors

Act Director of Public Prosecutions

Bevan & Co ( Defendant)

File Numbers:

CC 41864 of 2023

CC 40757 of 2024

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Facts

1․The Defendant, Mr Benjamin Hannaford, was a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) which involved plumbing and general maintenance work. He traded under the business name ‘RnB Plumbing’.
2․On 4 May 2022 an individual, Mr Khan, engaged Mr Hannaford to replace the roof on his garden shed. The work included the removal of material from the site after the roof had been replaced. The agreed price was $1,643 plus GST.
3․On 3 June 2022, Mr Hannaford attended Mr Khan’s address with another man who assisted him (“Mr X”). Mr Hannaford removed and replaced the garden shed roof but he did not take the old roof sheets away. He left the sheets, which contained asbestos, on the ground beside the shed. Mr Hannaford was not a licensed asbestos removalist.
4․On 10 June 2022, Mr Khan asked Mr Hannaford why he had not removed the old roofing sheets. Mr Hannaford advised Mr Khan that the sheets contained asbestos and he was arranging for them to be double bagged and removed. He asked for an additional $270 to dispose of the old roofing sheets, which Mr Khan agreed to pay.
5․On 19 June 2022, Mr Hannaford attended Mr Khan’s property with another man, Mr Church. Mr Church had agreed to Mr Hannaford using his box trailer to load the sheets, however Mr Hannaford did not tell Mr Church that the sheets contained asbestos. He told him that they were collecting an old fence.
6․Mr Hannaford loaded the trailer while Mr Church stayed in the car. Mr Church then drove…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Agius v Hannaford

Details

AGLC: Agius v Hannaford [2025] ACTMC 19
Case: [2025] ACTMC 19
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Agius v Hannaford involved the respondents, Agius and another, who were found guilty of a Category 2 offence under the Work Health and Safety Act for exposing two employees to asbestos. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the respondents for their breach of the health and safety legislation. The respondents argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the punishment imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and whether it was consistent with sentencing principles applicable to similar cases. The respondents contended that the sentence failed to take into account the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to manage their business and that the penalty was not proportionate to the degree of culpability involved in the offence. The court considered the respondents' submissions alongside the need to uphold the integrity of workplace health and safety laws.

In its decision, the court recognised the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. However, it also acknowledged the mitigating factors presented, such as the respondents' compliance with health and safety laws in other areas and the impact of the pandemic on their operations. Ultimately, the court found that while the offence was serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the need to balance punitive measures with the principles of justice and proportionality. The court's judgment affirmed the sentence but provided detailed reasoning to ensure transparency and adherence to legal standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [49]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.