Coggins v Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd - [2014] ICQ 22

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Coggins v Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd [2014] ICQ 022

PARTIES:

DEAN ALLAN COGGINS
(appellant)
v
STEELCON CAVA PTY LTD
(respondent)

CASE NO/S:

C/2013/42

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of the Industrial Magistrate

DELIVERED ON:

14 July 2014

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2014

MEMBER:

Martin J, President

ORDER/S:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS – PARTICULARS AND CONTENT OF ORIGINATING PROCESS – DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – where the appellant laid a complaint against the respondent, alleging breaches of workplace health and safety obligations – where an Industrial Magistrate held that the complaint was invalid and incapable of amendment – whether the complaint met the requirements set out by the High Court in Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531

Justices Act 1886, s 48
Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995, ss 24, 28, 37

CASES:

Bell v Hendry [2014] ICQ 18, followed
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1, applied
McGarry v Daytona Trading Pty Ltd [2014] ICQ 21, referred to
N K Collins Industries Pty Ltd v President of the Industrial Court of Queensland & Anor [2013] QCA 179, followed
N K Collins Industries Pty Ltd v President of the Industrial Court of Queensland & Anor [2010] QSC 373, considered

APPEARANCES:

P Matthews directly instructed by Legal & Prosecution Services, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland for the appellant
A Freeman instructed by the Worcester & Co for the respondent

On 3 October 2012 the appellant made a complaint that the respondent had failed to discharge an obligation imposed upon it by s 28 of the Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995[1] (“the Act”).
[1]The Workplace Health & Safety Act 1995 was repealed by the Work Health & Safety Act 2011. Section 282 of the latter Act allows for proceedings to be taken against a person in certain circumstances as if the repeal had not happened.

The complaint read as follows:

“THE COMPLAINT of DEAN COGGINS … made this 3^rd day of October, 2012, … who says that on the 27^th day of October, 2011 at 4 Northridge Rd, Mt Isa, QLD, in the Magistrates Court District of Mt Isa, STEELCON CAVA PTY LTD being a person conducting a business or undertaking on whom a workplace health and safety obligation prescribed by section 28 of the Workplace Health andSafety Act 1995 (repealed) is imposed did fail to discharge the obligation contrary to section 24 of the said Act.
Particulars
It is alleged that workers were not free from risk to their workplace health and safety arising out of the conduct of the defendant's business or undertaking [s.28].
Worker:  Kingsley Rex WADE
Workplace:  4 Northridge Rd, Mt Isa QLD
Business or undertaking:         Abrasive blasting
Hazards:  The source of the risk is:
(1) Plant namely,
a. 1 x Compair 2400P Diesel Portable air compressor serial # 0107 10/225.
b. 1 x…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coggins v Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] ICQ 22
Decision Date: 14 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Coggins v Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr. Coggins, brought an action against the respondent, Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd, in the Industrial Magistrates Court of Queensland. Mr. Coggins alleged that the respondent had breached workplace health and safety obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). The respondent contested the allegations, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before an Industrial Magistrate. The central issue before the court was whether Mr. Coggins' complaint was sufficiently particularised and met the legal standards set for originating process in the context of workplace health and safety disputes.

The Industrial Magistrate examined the complaint against the legal requirements established by the High Court in Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales. The Magistrate concluded that the complaint was not adequately detailed and did not comply with the principles laid out in Kirk. Specifically, the complaint failed to clearly and precisely describe the alleged breaches and the legal basis upon which they were made. The court found that the complaint was vague and did not provide the respondent with enough information to properly prepare a defence. Consequently, the Magistrate held that the complaint was invalid and incapable of amendment.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the High Court's decision in Kirk, which emphasised the need for clarity and precision in complaints concerning workplace health and safety. The Magistrate determined that, because the complaint did not meet these legal standards, it could not be amended to correct the deficiencies. The court's decision ultimately resulted in the dismissal of Mr. Coggins' complaint against the respondent.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the Industrial Magistrate's finding that the complaint was invalid and incapable of amendment was upheld. The respondent, Steelcon Cava Pty Ltd, was therefore protected from the allegations made by Mr. Coggins due to the insufficiency of the complaint.

Orders