HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW

Case [2022] NSWCCA 212


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2022] NSWCCA 212
Hearing dates: 3 August 2022
Date of orders: 30 September 2022
Decision date: 30 September 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Hamill J at [70]
Cavanagh J at [71]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIME — work health and safety — appeal against conviction for breaching duty owed by persons conducting a business or undertaking under s 19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) — appeal pursuant to s 5AA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) — consideration of extent to which challenges to findings of fact permitted

CRIME — work health and safety — whether conduct of labour hire worker occurred as part of host’s business or undertaking for the purposes of s 19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act — alleged error in finding that worker an employee or agent of hirer for the purposes of s 244 not material — conviction well supported by factual findings without the need to rely on s 244

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5AA

District Court Rules 1973 (NSW), r 53.26(3)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 7, 19, 32, 244

Cases Cited:

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40

Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616; [1976] HCA 62

Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1; (2022) 96 ALJR 89

Conway v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 203; [2002] HCA 2

Edwards v the Queen [2021] HCA 28; (2021) 95 ALJR 808

Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Histollo Pty Ltd v Director-General of National Parks & Wildlife Service (1998) 45 NSWLR 661; (1998) 103 LGERA 355

Grasso Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW; Grasso v SafeWork NSW [2021] NSWCCA 288

Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36; (2021) 95 ALJR 937

Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10

Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2021] NSWCCA 95

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Limited [1947] AC 1

New South Wales v Lepore (2012) 212 CLR 511; [2003] HCA 4

Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC (2016) 258 CLR 134; [2016] HCA 37

R v Radic [2001] NSWCCA 174; (2001) 122 A Crim R 70

Stokes v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR 279; [1960] HCA 95

Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161; [2006] HCA 19

TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47

Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace (1985) 8 FCR 27; [1985] FCA 619

Warren…

Continue reading HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2022] NSWCCA 212
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 212
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of HD Projects Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the conviction of HD Projects for breaching their duty under section 19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). The appeal was brought by HD Projects against their conviction, questioning the extent to which challenges to findings of fact were permissible.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the actions of the labour hire worker were part of the host’s business or undertaking for the purposes of section 19(2) of the Act, and whether there was an error in finding that the worker was an employee or agent of the hirer for the purposes of section 244 of the Act. The court needed to consider whether any alleged error in finding that the worker was an employee or agent was material and whether the conviction was well supported by factual findings without reliance on section 244.

The Supreme Court found that the appeal did not succeed as the conviction was well supported by factual findings. The court held that any error in finding that the worker was an employee or agent of the hirer was not material. The court also concluded that the extent to which challenges to findings of fact were permitted in this context was limited. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, and HD Projects' appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.