Agius v JB Slab Pty Ltd - [2025] ACTMC 2

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Agius v JB Slab Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2025] ACTMC 2
Hearing Date:	17 December 2024
Decision Date:	21 February 2025
Before:	Magistrate Lawton
Decision:	See order [47]
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE – Judgement and Punishment – Sentence – General deterrence – Failing to comply with a health and safety duty – Exposure to risk of death or serious injury or illness
Legislation Cited:	Work Health and Safety Act 2011, ss 3, 14, 16, 19, 32 Building Act 2004, s 42 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, s 7
Cases Cited:	Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 96 SafeWork NSW v Modco Homes [2024] NSWDC 656 Agius v Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate [2024] ACTMC 17 Smithers v Capitol Chilled Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] ACTMC 5 Grey v Agnew Building Supplies Pty Ltd [2023] ACTMC 13 Foster v Better Building Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] ACTIC 2
Parties:	Jacqueline Agius (Informant) JB Slab Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel S Janackovic ( DPP) J Maher ( Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal on London ( Defendant)
File Number:	CAN 41055/2024

MAGISTRATE LAWTON:

The defendant, JB Slab Pty Ltd, pleaded guilty on 17 December 2024 to an offence of failing to comply with a health and safety duty pursuant to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘WHS Act’). This is a category 2 offence arising from an incident in Taylor in the Australian Capital Territory on 24 May 2022.
The maximum penalty for a category 2 offence when committed by a body corporate is $1,500,000.
The defendant’s business involved carrying out specialist concreting works including the construction of formwork, and the pouring and installing of concrete slabs, walls, driveways and footpaths. The defendant’s sole director was Mr Jasvir Singh.
The defendant is a person conducting a business or undertaking (“PCBU”). The defendant relevantly has a duty to ensure the provision and the maintenance of a work environment without risks to health and safety and safe systems of work as well as adequate information, training and instruction to its workers.
The defendant was engaged to carry out works at a residential construction site in Taylor. Both Mr Atinderpal Singh and Mr Manpreet Sidhu were engaged to undertake work on the site.
Between 12 May 2022 and 24 May 2022, Rediwall panels had been constructed on the site in an ad-hoc manner. A bracing technique was used to affix the timber walers to the top section of the Rediwall, affix timber plates to the cured concrete slab and affix timber members between the timber waler and timber plate at an angle. Some of these pieces of timber were screwed together. Some of the timber pieces had been used multiple times beforehand.
On 23 May 2022, a certifier had taken photographs of the site and completed a Building Inspector Record where it was indicated that the building work complied with s 42…

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 JB Slab Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Agius v JB Slab Pty Ltd [2025] ACTMC 2
Case: [2025] ACTMC 2
Decision Date: 21 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Agius v JB Slab Pty Ltd, the primary issue revolved around the defendant's failure to comply with its health and safety duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, resulting in the plaintiff's exposure to a significant risk of death or serious injury or illness. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr. Agius, sought damages for injuries sustained as a consequence of the defendant company's non-compliance with its obligations. The defendant, JB Slab Pty Ltd, contested the plaintiff's claims, arguing that it had taken reasonable care to ensure the safety of its employees.

The court was required to determine whether JB Slab Pty Ltd had breached its duty of care towards the plaintiff and whether such breach led to the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, considering the severity of the injuries and the defendant's culpability. The court had to weigh the principles of general deterrence against the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that the sentence would serve to prevent similar incidents in the future.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties. It found that JB Slab Pty Ltd had indeed failed to meet its health and safety obligations, leading to the plaintiff's exposure to a high risk of serious injury. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with occupational health and safety regulations and the need for companies to prioritise the welfare of their employees. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff a significant sum in damages, reflecting the gravity of the injuries and the defendant's culpability. The court's judgment underscored the necessity for robust enforcement of health and safety laws to protect workers from preventable harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

See order [47]

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.