District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) (2) [2015] NSWDC 30 Decision date: 05 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Kearns, DCJ Decision: For reasons given at [189] to [197] and [198] to [203], the prosecutor has made good her case on particular i.i. and i.iii, but not on particular i.ii. Particular i.ii, dealing with the SFM Plans, fails also for reasons set out at [154] to [162].
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Jennifer Ann Nash, Director, Mine Safety Performance, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (Prosecutor)
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Mr C Magee, instructed by Crown Solicitor for NSW (Prosecutor)
Mr D Buchanan SC, instructed by Sparke Helmore (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2012/244559
Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) [2015] NSWDC 6
-
The parties have drawn to my attention my treatment of particulars in i.i, i.ii and i.iii and left it to me to review that treatment and apply any correction I consider appropriate under the slip rule.
-
The parties’ concern is proper. It is evident that in dealing with particulars i.i, i.ii and i.iii, I turned to further particulars or items that were set out in the prosecutor’s submissions and considered each of those items. I then failed to relate back to particulars i.i, i.ii and i.iii in my consideration of those items.
-
For reasons given at [189] to [197] and [198] to [203], the prosecutor has made good her case on particular i.i. and i.iii, but not on particular i.ii. Particular i.ii, dealing with the SFM Plans, fails also for reasons set out at [154] to [162].
**********
- AGLC
- Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) (2) [2015] NSWDC 30
- Case
- [2015] NSWDC 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court meticulously examined the statutory obligations imposed on BUO, assessing whether the company had genuinely endeavoured to comply with the legislative requirements. It was determined that BUO had indeed neglected to submit the safety and fire management plans, establishing a prima facie case of non-compliance. However, the Court found that the evidence did not substantiate Inspector Nash's claim that BUO had failed to make a genuine effort to comply. The Court held that BUO had demonstrated a proactive approach in addressing the plan submissions, thus mitigating the severity of the non-compliance. Consequently, the Court found that BUO had not contravened the Act in the manner alleged by Inspector Nash concerning the safety and fire management plans.
In summary, the Court ruled in favour of BUO on the specific allegations regarding the safety and fire management plans, concluding that BUO had not contravened the Act in this respect. However, the Court found Inspector Nash successful on other particulars, indicating that BUO had indeed contravened the Act in other areas. The final orders reflected these findings, with particular emphasis on the specific non-compliance issues that were upheld against BUO.
Orders
Orders of the court
For reasons given at [189] to [197] and [198] to [203], the prosecutor has made good her case on particular i.i. and i.iii, but not on particular i.ii. Particular i.ii, dealing with the SFM Plans, fails also for reasons set out at [154] to [162].
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.