Agius v Hannaford - [2023] ACTMC 5

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…

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 [2023] ACTMC 5
Case: [2023] ACTMC 5
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Agius v Hannaford came before the court concerning a dispute involving workplace injury. The case involved Agius, who claimed damages due to an injury sustained at work, and Hannaford, who was responsible for the workplace safety. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence and the extent of the damages. The primary focus was on the legal framework governing workplace injuries and the procedural aspects of sentencing in such cases.

The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the injury was indeed work-related, the extent of damages attributable to the injury, and the appropriate sentencing under the relevant statutes. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural fairness in handling the case and the adequacy of the workplace safety measures implemented by Hannaford.

The court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It determined that the injury was indeed work-related and found Hannaford liable for not maintaining adequate workplace safety standards. The court assessed the extent of the damages and concluded that the injury had a significant impact on Agius's ability to work. After considering various factors, the court decided on a sentence that was deemed appropriate, taking into account the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the case. The court also noted procedural shortcomings in the handling of the case and provided guidance on improving workplace safety measures.

The court's final orders included a determination of damages payable to Agius and recommendations for Hannaford to improve workplace safety protocols. The court also outlined the specific sentence to be imposed, ensuring that it was fair and just under the circumstances. This decision not only addressed the immediate dispute but also aimed to prevent similar incidents in the future.

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.