Fletcher v Lavin
[2021] QMC 10
•3 December 2021
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Fletcher v Lavin & Ors [2021] QMC 10
PARTIES: DAVID FLETCHER (Complainant)
V
LAVIN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (Defendant 1)
And
PETER RAYMOND LAVIN (Defendant 2)
And
MULTI-RUN ROOFING PTY LTD (Defendant 3)
And
GARY WILLIAM LAVIN (Defendant 4)
FILE NO/S: 00192393/16(7); 00192432/16(2); 00192403/16(2); 00192438/16(1)
ORIGINATING COURT: Noosa Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON: 3 December 2021
DELIVERED AT: Noosa Magistrates Court
HEARING DATES: 17 March 2021, 18 March 2021, 14 May 2021 and 3 September 2021
MAGISTRATE: C Callaghan
ORDER: I find each of the four defendants guilty.
CATCHWORDS: WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY – health and safety duties - managers’ duties to exercise due diligence to ensure their companies complied with their health and safety duties – management of risks – what is reasonably practicable to ensure health and safety of workers – control measures to prevent falls from height and minimize risk of death or serious injury
LEGISLATION: Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 ss 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 32
Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2011 ss 306D, 306E
CASES: Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R [2012] 246 CLR 92
COUNSEL: Mr B McMillan for the Complainant;
Mr A Glynn QC with Mr S Grant for Defendants 1 and 2
SOLICITOR: Office of Workplace Health and Safety for the Complainant
McInnes Wilson for Defendants 1 and 2
Mr Gary Lavin represented himself and Defendant 3
In December 2014 Lavin Constructions Pty Ltd (“Lavin Constructions”) was renovating the Old Cooroy Brickworks at 271 Lake MacDonald Drive, Lake MacDonald (“the workplace”). Lavin Constructions had engaged Multi-Run Roofing Pty Ltd (“Multi-Run Roofing”) to remove roof sheets from the roof at the workplace. On 5 December 2014, Greg Karlsson, a then Senior Inspector for Workplace Health and Safety, Queensland visited the workplace. He observed workers working on top of a roof, a ladder located to a side of the roof and an Elevated Work Platform (“EWP”) the floor of which was level with the roof line at the front of the roof. There was no other form of edge protection, or travel restraint system, or any platform to arrest any potential fall or a fall arrest harness system or an industrial safety net to prevent or arrest a person’s fall from the edge of the roof.
Mr Karlsson issued a Prohibition Notice and an Improvement Notice stopping the work on the roof until improvements were in place and an Inspector was satisfied that the risk had been remedied. The Prohibition and Improvement Notices were all complied with and the work later proceeded.
At all material times:
a.Lavin Constructions was a company incorporated according to law, the principal contractor at the workplace and was the entity with management and control of the workplace;
b.Peter Raymond Lavin was an officer of and person who made decisions that affected the business or undertaking of Lavin Constructions in the management and control of the workplace and knew that Lavin Constructions was the principal contractor at the workplace and that it was the entity exercising management and control of the workplace;
c.Multi-Run Roofing was a company incorporated according to law, was engaged by Lavin Constructions to undertake the removal of roof sheeting and suspected asbestos material from the roof (“the work”);
d.Gary William Lavin was an officer of and person who made decisions that affected the business or undertaking of Multi-Run Roofing
There is no evidence of any worker at or about this time having fallen from this roof which is 5.1 metres in height with a pitch of about 5 degrees. But the complainant has filed complaints against all 4 defendants alleging breaches of workplace health and safety duties.
The complaints allege pursuant to section 32 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (“the Act”) that each defendant had a health and safety duty, with which they failed to comply and that failure exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. In particular, the complaints allege that:
a.Lavin Constructions, being a person with management or control of the workplace had a health and safety duty under s 20 of the Act to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that anything arising from the workplace was without risks to the health or safety of the workers (with the hazard giving rise to the risk being workers falling from height from the edge of the shed roof and the risk being that workers on the roof could fall from the edge of the shed roof and be injured or killed);
b.Peter Raymond Lavin, being an officer of Lavin Constructions, had, pursuant to s 27 of the Act, a duty to exercise due diligence to ensure that Lavin Constructions complied with its health and safety duty under s 20 of the Act (again with the hazard giving rise to the risk being workers falling from height from the edge of the shed roof and the risk being that workers on the roof could fall from the edge of the shed roof and be injured or killed);
c.Multi-Run Roofing being a person conducting a business or undertaking had a health and safety duty under s 19 of the Act to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged by it and workers whose activities are influenced or directed by it whilst at work (again with the hazard giving rise to the risk being workers falling from height from the edge of the shed roof and the risk being that workers on the roof could fall from the edge of the shed roof and be injured or killed);
d.Gary William Lavin, being an officer of Multi-Run Roofing had, pursuant to s 27 of the Act, a duty to exercise due diligence to ensure that Multi-Run Roofing complied with its duty or obligation under s 19 of the Act (again with the hazard giving rise to the risk being workers falling from height from the edge of the shed roof and the risk being that workers on the roof could fall from the edge of the shed roof and be injured or killed).
All defendants have pleaded not guilty. For the purposes of this hearing all defendants have made admissions of facts[1], which apart from the corporate defendants’ incorporation according to law they have also admitted:
a.The height of the shed roof was 5.1 metres;
b.If a worker fell from the edge of the shed roof to the ground, there was a risk the worker would be seriously injured or killed;
c.Workers were present at the workplace and working on the roof on 5 December 2014.
[1] Lavin Constructions – Exhibit B; Peter Lavin – Ex C; Multi-Run Roofing – Ex D; and Gary Lavin – Ex E.
Lavin Constructions has also admitted that at the material time it was a person conducting a business or undertaking with the management and control of the workplace.
Peter Lavin has also admitted that at the material time he was an officer of Lavin Constructions and was the person who made decisions that affected the business or undertaking of Lavin Constructions in the management and control of the workplace.
Multi-Run Roofing has also admitted that at the material time it was conducting a business or undertaking at the workplace and influenced or directed the activities of workers in carrying out work at the workplace.
10.Gary Lavin has also admitted that at the material time he was an officer of Multi-Run Roofing and the person who made decisions that affected the business or undertaking of Multi-Run Roofing at the workplace.
11.Given these admissions, to be successful in proving the case against the defendants, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt against:
a.Lavin Constructions, that it failed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of any person (meaning the workers working at the workplace);
b.Peter Lavin, that he failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that Lavin Constructions complied with its health and safety duty under section 20;
c.Multi-Run Roofing, that it failed to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers whose activities were influenced by it (meaning the workers working at the workplace);
d.Gary Lavin, that he failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that Multi-Run Roofing complied with its health and safety duty under section 19.
12.If the case is not proven against Lavin Constructions, then it must also fail against Peter Lavin.
13.If the case is not proven against Multi-Run Roofing, then it must also fail against Gary Lavin.
14.So what did Lavin Constructions have to do to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of the workers? And what did Multi-Run Roofing have to do to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of the workers? Ensuring the health and safety of workers is the same as ensuring that the workplace is not without risk to their health and safety and doing what is reasonably practicable to ensure it is without risk to the health and safety of workers, is the same as doing what is reasonably practicable to ensure the workers’ health and safety.
15.Section 17 of the Act provides
17 Management of Risks
A duty imposed on a person to ensure health and safety requires the person-
(a) to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable; and
(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks so far as is reasonably practicable.16.To “ensure” means to guarantee or make certain.[2]
[2] See Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd v Callaghan (1985) 11 IR 467 at 470
17.Section 18 of the Act provides:
18 What is reasonably practicable in ensuring health and safety
In this Act, reasonably practicable, in relation to a duty to ensure health and safety, means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters including-
(a) the likelihood of the hazard or risk concerned occurring; and
(b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or risk; and
(c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know,
about-
(i) the hazard or the risk; and
(ii) ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and
(d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and
(e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk.18.Section 306D of the Work Health and safety Regulation 2011 (“the Regulation”) applied to construction work, such as this, where there is a risk of fall of at least 2 metres. It provided that a person conducting a business or undertaking who intends to do construction work must, before the work starts, use control measures to prevent a person falling any distance and if prevention is not practicable, to arrest a person’s fall and to prevent or minimise the risk of death or injury to a person when the fall is arrested, and it gives examples of the control measures as follows:
a.To prevent a person falling any distance
i.Edge protection
ii.A fall protection cover placed over an opening
iii.A travel restraint system
b.If prevention is not practicable, to arrest a person’s fall and prevent or minimise risk of death or injury when the fall is arrested
i.A fall arresting platform
ii.A fall arrest harness system
iii.An industrial safety net.
19.Section 306D of the Regulation provides that it is an offence to fail to use these control measures. The defendants haven’t been charged with any offences against s306D of the Regulation but the measures there and in the following sections which give further definition to what these measures mean, give guidance to some of the ways of ensuring that workplaces such as the one in question here are places either without risk or places of minimal risk to workers’ health and safety.
20.Section 306E of the Regulation provides that edge protection when used as a control measure relevantly must:
a.Be designed to withstand the impact of the force of a fall against it;
b.Have a rail to prevent a person from falling at least 900mm higher than the surface;
c.Have a bottom rail at least 150mm up from the surface and not more than 250mm higher than the surface or a toe board at the base of the surface at least 150mm high and fitted below all rails of edge protection; and
d.Have another rail fitted so that there is no more than 450mm between any of the rails or a rail and the toe board.
21.It is argued here by the defendants that the EWP in place on 5 December 2014, the floor of which was raised to the level of the roof, which had rails and a toe board which complied with the dimensions and requirements of s 306E of the regulation, was a sufficient control measure. There is no evidence that fall protection covers, travel restraint systems, fall arresting platforms fall arrest harness systems and industrial safety nets. any of those control measures were employed at this workplace on 5 December 2014 and that being the case, there is no need to set out here the requirements of such systems or measures.
22.Bradley Wilson, a site supervisor for the workplace on behalf of Lavin Constructions, gave evidence. He was not present on 5 December 2014. As he was away that day, Peter Lavin took over his supervisory role. He did however, prior to 5 December 2014, have a discussion with Gary Lavin concerning the work, wherein it was decided that the workers up on the roof would unscrew the cladding, possibly spray it with a glue water solution remove the cladding, walk it straight down on top of the screw line to the parapet and place the sheet onto the EWP and after a number had been so placed someone at ground level would operate the EWP so as to lower it to ground level so that the sheets could be removed and the EWP raised again to be there at the roof level to receive more roofing sheets. Mr Wilson didn’t consider the prospect of a worker going to the edge of the roof while the EWP was in its lowered position as it was not part of the procedure and he assumed the workers would follow procedure.[3] As he didn’t consider it, it follows that he didn’t discuss this prospect with Gary Lavin.
[3] T1–64 LL 34 - 40
23.On 5 December 2014, when inspecting the workplace, Mr Karlsson took numerous photographs[4]. Photograph 20 depicts 2 workers sliding a roof sheet onto the EWP and a 3rd worker standing back from those 2. He estimated that that 3rd worker would have been standing roughly 5 to 10 metres back from the edge of the roof which had the EWP placed beside it and under a metre from the edge of the roof which had downpipes attached and under a metre from the edge of the roof upon which lent the ladder.[5] These are estimates only. It is too difficult to determine if the worker depicted in photograph 20 wearing the Hi-Viz shirt and cap is in the same position as he is depicted in photograph 22. Whether a worker always stayed on the screw lines in compliance with what Bradley Wilson proposed as the work procedures to apply at the workplace doesn’t determine the outcome of this prosecution. Other photographs such as that photograph 22 show the EWP in situ and with some roof sheets stacked on top of it.
[4] Exhibit 1
[5] T1-50 LL 15 - 25
24.Dr Paul Carnavas from Forensic Engineering and Consulting Pty Ltd prepared a report on the use of an EWP as edge protection, which the prosecution tendered into evidence.[6] In that report Dr Carnavas pointed out where he thought the use of the EWP as edge protection did not comply with Section 306E of the Regulation. I have already found that those opinions are not admissible as they are opinions of law. He also gives opinions as to whether the EWP complied with the Australian Standards. I haven’t found these opinions helpful as the Australian Standards are not law, they simply give guidance to designers as to what the structures should be comprised of. In any event some of the opinions say that the EWP “may not comply with…”. This doesn’t assist. His report helpfully sets out the relevant sections of the Australian Standards. Arguments that he did not examine the precise EWP used on 5 December 2014 therefore don’t need to be addressed. Essentially all that Dr Carnavas raises in his report is an argument that because the EWP could be lowered from the roof height then the requirement under Section 306E of the Regulation hasn’t been met because:
[6] Exhibit 15
a.The rail wasn’t 900mm higher than the surface from which the work was to be done;[7]
[7] S306E (4) of the Regulation
b.The toe board wasn’t at least 150mm high from the surface;[8]
[8] S306E(5) of the Regulation
25.I note the “Surface” referred to in the Regulation seems to be the surface of the edge protection so it could be argued by the Defendants that because the rail was over 900mm and the toe board was at least 150mm higher than the surface of what they call the edge protection (the floor of the EWP) then they couldn’t be guilty of an offence against s306E of the Regulation. But they haven’t been charged with contravening that Section of the Regulation, so I don’t need to answer that question.
26.There are no sections of the Australian Standard nor of the Regulation which prescribe the extent or length of edge protection required in high-risk construction work such as the workplace. It is clear from looking at Photograph 21 of Exhibit 1 that the EWP used on 5 December 2014 was longer than the roof sheets stacked on it for removal.
27.Roof edge protection can be supported by the roof, wall or floor structure. It also can be not attached to the roof, wall or floor structure. The Australian Standard clearly contemplates that roof edge protection may be provided by scaffolding components. Scaffolding need not be fixed to the building. The Standard is silent on moveable edge protection.
28.The only form of edge protection used at the workplace on 5 December 2014 was the moveable EWP. This did not always provide edge protection (i.e., when lowered). The defendants argue that, because there was a system of work agreed between Bradley Wilson on the part of Lavin Constructions and Gary Lavin on the part of Multi-Run Roofing that the workers would unscrew and remove the cladding, walk it down the roof on top of the screw line and then straight down the parapet and place the sheets on the EWP and then walk back to get more sheets and that when there was 10 or 20 sheets stacked on the EWP someone on the ground would lower the EWP and off load the sheets and when the EWP was lowered the workers would be back up in the middle of the roof, the only edge protection needed was the EWP. There is no evidence that this work procedure was communicated or was not communicated to the workers. So, I shall proceed as if it was communicated to the workers.
29.Raymond Holst gave evidence that he was a worker at the workplace on 5 December 2014. He in fact was employed by Shane Williams then. He said that Shane might have given him instructions on how to undertake the work, but he can’t really remember. He can’t recall anyone else giving him instructions on how to undertake the work. He said he was pretty sure he got up onto the roof by the ladder, which differs to Bradley Wilson’s evidence that procedure was for the workers were to get onto and off the roof by the EWP. Mr Holst said he can’t recall being given any instructions about managing a risk from falling from the roof. He said he already roughly knew what he was doing. He conceded in cross-examination that he had previously told Inspector Millar in an interview that there was a toolbox meeting, but his recollection on the events of 5 December 2014 is very poor.
30.Taking the workplace procedure enunciated by Bradley Wilson and its communication to the workers at its highest, that the workers would unscrew and remove the cladding, walk it down the roof on top of the screw line and then straight down the parapet and place the sheets on the EWP and then walk back to get more sheets and that when there was 10 or 20 sheets stacked on the EWP someone on the ground would lower the EWP and off load the sheets and when the EWP was lowered the workers would be back up in the middle of the roof, is this enough to protect the workers from the risk of a fall from the roof thus exposing them to death or serious injury?
31.The High Court has considered the words “so far as is reasonably practicable” in Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R[9] where at Paragraph [15] the majority said those words direct attention to the extent of the duty. “The words ‘reasonably practicable’ indicate that the duty does not require an employer to take every possible step that could be taken. The steps that are to be taken in performance of the duty are those that are reasonably practicable for the employer to take to achieve the identified end of providing and maintaining a safe working environment. Bare demonstration that a step could have been taken, and that, if taken, it might have had some effect on the safety of a working environment does not, without more, demonstrate that an employer has broken the duty imposed by s 21(1). The question remains whether the employer has so far as is reasonably practicable provided and maintained a safe working environment.”
[9] (2012) 246 CLR 92
32.In my view there is a risk that workers won’t always precisely follow instructions on how to do the work. Employers on construction sites must anticipate this. An example of this is the worker depicted in photos 20 and 22 of Exhibit 1. He doesn’t seem to be removing cladding, walking it down the roof, then straight down the parapet, placing the sheet on the EWP or walking back up to the middle of the roof. He seems to be standing around watching what is happening. As such, he is not complying with instructions (if they were delivered to him) on how to do the work.
33.There is a risk that a worker up on that roof might walk over to its edge and look down to see what is happening at ground level if, for instance, the EWP is delayed in its return to the roof’s edge. There is a risk that workers might not wait, after returning to the middle of the roof to remove cladding, for the EWP to return to the roof’s edge, and, once removed carry the cladding over to the edge to wait there for the EWP to return to the roof’s edge. There’s a risk that the EWP might malfunction when not at the roof’s edge, leaving the workers exposed to a roof’s edge without edge protection. I asses the risk of a worker being drawn to the unprotected edge to be reasonably foreseeable.
34.Once drawn to the edge when the EWP is not at the roof’s height there is a risk that a worker could lose balance and fall from the roof. If that were to occur, then the worker would be at risk of being seriously injured or killed.
35.Each of the 4 defendants either knew or if they didn’t know, ought to have known of the risks referred to in the previous 2 paragraphs.
36.Each of the 4 defendants either knew or ought to have known about the ways of either eliminating or minimizing these risks.
37.After receiving the Prohibition and Improvement Notices, ATF Services Pty Ltd was engaged to install edge protection by way of 22 metres of guardrail on the roof at the workplace. They installed it on 19 January 2015 and charged $495.00 for the installation. Simon Taylor, an employee of ATF Services Pty Ltd, and a person who is experienced in the installation of such guardrails estimated that it would have taken an hour to two hours to complete the installation. This to me is a meagre cost (timewise and in dollar terms) to prevent or minimize the risk of death or injury to workers working on that roof.
38.In applying these findings to the criteria set out in s18 of the Act, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the use of the EWP was not a reasonably practicable way of ensuring the health and safety of workers working at the workplace. The edge protection installed by ATF Services Pty Ltd was a reasonably practicable way of ensuring the health and safety of workers working at the workplace. This is not a case of one or the other, as there can be more than one reasonably practicable way of ensuring the health and safety of workers working at the workplace. But here the use of the EWP was not one such way.
39.It follows that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Multi-Run Roofing failed in its duty to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers whose activities were influenced or directed by it whilst at work on 5 December 2014 and that failure exposed the workers to a risk of death or serious injury.
40.As Gary Lavin was the person who made decisions that affected the business or undertaking of Multi-Run Roofing at the workplace, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that Multi-Run Roofing complied with its duty to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers whose activities were influenced or directed by it whilst at work on 5 December 2014 and that failure exposed the workers to a risk of death or serious injury.
41.For the prosecution to be successful against Lavin Constructions, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lavin Constructions’ engagement of Multi-Run Roofing and through it, Gary Lavin (both apparently skilled to perform the work required at the workplace) did not discharge its obligation to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of any person.[10] Lavin Constructions had control of the workplace. Lavin Constructions could have stopped work at the workplace if it considered that its subcontractor Multi-Run Roofing wasn’t, so far as is reasonably practicable, ensuring a safe workplace. Lavin Constructions through its representative, Bradley Wilson, discussed the use of the EWP as edge protection with Gary Lavin on 2 December 2014. Bradley Wilson had worked in the building industry for 35/36 years and for entities associated with Peter Lavin for the last 19 years and he holds Certificates 3 and 4 in Civil Construction.[11] He was experienced in construction. It is not known whether the suggestion on 2 December 2014, to use the EWP as edge protection was his or Gary Lavin’s. They, on behalf of the companies they represented both agreed that this was to be the work procedure. Nothing in evidence suggests that the control of the workplace on 5 December 2014 was in the hands of Multi-Run Roofing or Gary Lavin. I am not satisfied on the evidence that Lavin Constructions was relying on the expertise of Multi-Run Roofing or Gary Lavin, when it came to the safety of the workplace. The mere engagement of Multi-Run Roofing, as experienced as it was, and through it, Gary Lavin, as experienced as he was, does not absolve Lavin Constructions of its duty, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure the workplace was without risk to any person. The risks referred to by me in Paragraphs 33 and 34 in this Judgment were, in my view, reasonably foreseeable by an average lay person. One doesn’t need to rely on the expertise of an experienced roofer or construction worker/manager to foresee those risks.
[10] See Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R (2012) 246 CLR 92 at [1]
[11] T1-70 L 44 to 71 L 11
42.Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Lavin Constructions, being in management and control of the workplace, failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that anything arising from the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of workers working at the workplace on 5 December 2014 and that failure exposed the workers to risk of death or serious injury.
43.Likewise, for the prosecution to be successful against Peter Lavin, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lavin Constructions engagement of Brad Wilson (experienced in managing the work required at the workplace), the engagement of the Housing Industry Association to bring up to date all of Lavin Constructions health and safety procedures in the months before 5 December 2014, the engagement in the ongoing training of workers, the giving to the workers whatever equipment they requested and having Lavin constructions engage Multi-Run Roofing to undertake and supervise the work did not discharge his obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that Lavin Constructions complied with its health and safety duty under section 20 to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of any person. As I said earlier the risks referred to by me in Paragraphs 33 and 34 in this Judgment were, in my view, reasonably foreseeable by an average lay person. One doesn’t need to rely on the expertise of an experienced roofer or construction worker/manager, or the Housing Industry Association, or the experienced Multi-Run Roofing to foresee those risks and act to ensure the safety of the workers. Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Peter Lavin’s direction to Lavin Constructions to employ the experienced Bradley Wilson, engage the Housing Industry Association, to engage in the ongoing training of workers, or the giving of requested equipment to workers or the engagement of the experienced Multi-Run Roofing did not discharge his obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that Lavin Constructions complied with its health and safety duty under section 20 to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable, that anything arising from the workplace was without risk to the health and safety of workers working at the workplace on 5 December 2014 and that failure exposed the workers to risk of death or serious injury.
44.As against Lavin Constructions, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:
a.Lavin Constructions was conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the workplace;
b.Lavin Constructions owed a health and safety duty under s 20(1) of the Act;
c.Lavin Constructions failed to comply with that duty; and
d.That failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.
45.As against Peter Lavin, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:
a.Peter Lavin was an officer of Lavin Constructions;
b.Lavin Constructions was conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the workplace;
c.Lavin Constructions owed a health and safety duty under s 20(1) of the Act;
d.Peter Lavin failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that Lavin Constructions complied with that duty; and
e.That failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.
46.As against Multi-Run Roofing, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:
a.Multi-Run Roofing was conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the workplace;
b.Multi-Run Roofing owed a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Act;
c.Multi-Run Roofing failed to comply with that duty; and
d.That failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.
47.As against Gary Lavin, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:
a.Gary Lavin was an officer of Multi-Run Roofing;
b.Multi-Run Roofing was conducting a business or undertaking with management or control of the workplace;
c.Multi-Run Roofing owed a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Act;
d.Gary Lavin failed to exercise due diligence to ensure Multi-Run Roofing complied with that duty; and
e.That failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.
48.I find each of the 4 defendants guilty.
C Callaghan
Magistrate
0
2
2