MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Guilfoyle v Culverthorpe Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 17
PARTIES:
Aaron John Guilfoyle
(Complainant)
v
Culverthorpe Pty Ltd
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG-00070115/19
DIVISION:
Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:
Criminal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:
4 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Toowoomba
HEARING DATE:
13 September 2019
MAGISTRATE:
G Lee
ORDER:
Convicted and fined $75,000 refer to SPER. I order the defendant to pay professional costs of $1,500 and $97.95.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Work Health and Safety – defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of failing to comply with a health and safety duty under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act – excavation of 3.6 metre deep trench on a farm for laying of large pipes – high risk construction work – employee of defendant working in the trench – employee trapped from waist down as side of trench collapsed – suffered serious injuries – risk of workers suffering from serious injury as a result of collapse of trench walls – sentence
Work Health and Safety Act 2011, ss 3, 17, 18, 19, 26A, 32, 275
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, ss 9, 11, 12, 13 & 48
Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011, ss 289, 291, 297
Code of Practice 2013, Excavation Work
The following cases were cited:
Hitchcock v Simon Contractors Pty Ltd, (unreported), Magistrate decision 22 May 2017 (MAG00278248/16)
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
R v Goodwin; ex parte Attorney General [2014] QCA 345
Reynolds v Orara Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 31
Reynolds v Tailored Adventures Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 150
Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 5
Safework NSW v Bustin Free Earthworks Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 9
Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd & Mac Farms Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 20
Williamson v APD Services, (unreported), Magistrate decision 12 January 2017 (MAG 00115079/16)
Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 56.
COUNSEL:
Ms R Lloyd for the complainant
Ms L Willson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor
McNamara & Associates, Solicitors for the defendant
On 13 September 2019 Culverthorpe Pty Ltd (defendant) pleaded guilty to an offence under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (The Act) that
On or about the fourth day of May 2017 at Pampas… [it] was conducting a business or undertaking and held a health and safety duty… pursuant to section 19(1) to ensure as far as was reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers engaged …by [it] while …at work in the business or undertaking and failed to comply with the said duty and the failure exposed an individual to a risk or death or serious injury…
On 3 May 2017 three workers for the defendant commenced trenching work for the laying of irrigation pipes under a closed railway line on the Millmerran Branch line at Pampas. The…
Continue reading Guilfoyle v Culverthorpe Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Guilfoyle v Culverthorpe Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 17
- Case
- [2019] QMC 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty for the defendant's breach of health and safety regulations. The excavation of a trench for the laying of large pipes constituted high-risk construction work, and the defendant was obligated to ensure the safety of its employees. The court needed to assess the gravity of the breach, the defendant's culpability, and the potential for preventing similar incidents in the future.
The court found the defendant guilty of the offence and imposed a penalty of $75,000, as well as ordering the defendant to pay professional costs of $1,500 and $97.95. The court considered the seriousness of the breach, the potential for serious injury to the employee, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in determining the penalty. The sentence was intended to reflect the gravity of the offence and to promote compliance with work health and safety regulations in the future.
The court's final orders included the conviction of the defendant, a fine of $75,000, and the requirement for the defendant to pay professional costs of $1,500 and $97.95. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring the safety of employees in high-risk construction work and the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
Convicted and fined $75,000 refer to SPER. I order the defendant to pay professional costs of $1,500 and $97.95.
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.