John Holland Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority

John Holland Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) to issue a prohibition notice under section 104 of the *Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004* (Vic). The VWA had issued the notice following an incident at a construction site where a worker had fallen from a height. The prohibition notice directed John Holland to cease all work at height until certain safety measures were implemented. John Holland contended that the VWA had misinterpreted and misapplied section 104, arguing that the notice was not justified. The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the VWA had acted within its powers when issuing the prohibition notice. Specifically, the court had to consider the proper interpretation of section 104 of the *Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004* (Vic), which empowers a WorkSafe inspector to issue a prohibition notice if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a workplace, or any aspect of a workplace, is being made unsafe or unhealthy. The central question was whether the VWA's belief that the work at height posed an immediate risk to health and safety was reasonably held, thereby justifying the prohibition notice.

The High Court ultimately found in favour of the VWA. The court reasoned that section 104 requires an inspector to form a belief on reasonable grounds that a risk exists, not to prove the risk beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence before the inspector, including the fact of a recent fall from height and the general risks associated with such work, was sufficient to ground a reasonable belief that the work was being carried out in a manner that posed an immediate risk to health and safety. The court emphasised that the purpose of a prohibition notice is to prevent immediate danger, and the threshold for issuing such a notice is not overly high. The court dismissed the application for judicial review.