Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd

Case [2019] NSWDC 796


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 796
Hearing dates: 23 October 2019
Date of orders: 20 December 2019
Decision date: 20 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

(1)   I direct that the prosecutor engross the stated case in the appropriate form for submission to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

 (2)   I direct that the prosecutor provide the stated case to my Associate on or before 5 pm on 7 February 2020.
Catchwords: CRIME- Appeal- whether proceedings had been completed- error of law
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Land and Environment Court Rules 1996
Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Cases Cited: Attorney General for New South Wales v X (2000) 49 NSWLR 653
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Charara v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] NSWCCA 140
Charles Forte Investments Ltd v Amanda [1964] Ch 240
Collector of Customs v Afga-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280
Commissioner of Taxation v Brixius (1987) 16 FCR 359
Elias v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] NSWCA 302
Environmental Protection Authority of New South Wales v Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCCA 439
Environmental Protection Authority v Land and Environment Court (2004) 144 A Crim R 198
Ex parte McGavin; Re Berne and Others (1946) 46 SR 58
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Trail Brothers Steel & Plastics Pty Ltd (2010) 186 FLR 410
Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145
Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 224
R v Bozatsis and Spanakakis (1997) 97 A Crim R 296
R v Cheng (1999) 48 NSWLR 616
R v Vincent [2002] NSWCCA 110
Registrar Court of Appeal v Craven (No 2) (1995) 80 A Crim R 272
Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251
Talay v R [2010] NSWCCA 308
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54
Williams v Bill Williams Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 547
Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Stephen Orr (Prosecutor)
Cobar Management Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Agius SC/C Magee (Prosecutor)
A Moses SC/J Alderson (Defendant)

    Solicitors:
SafeWork NSW (Prosecution)
Seyfarth Shaw (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/174236
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Cobar Management Pty Ltd (the defendant) has pleaded not guilty to a charge that as a person who had a health and safety duty under section 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act), it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed James Hern, a worker at work in the business or undertaking, to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.

  2. Mr Hern was employed by the defendant in the services crew at its CSA mine at Cobar (the mine). At…

Continue reading Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 796
Case
[2019] NSWDC 796
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orr was appealing a decision made by Cobar Management Pty Ltd, a decision that was grounded in a dispute over whether certain proceedings had been finalised and if there was an error of law. The matter was brought before the court to resolve these issues. The central legal questions that the court needed to address were whether the lower court had correctly identified the status of the proceedings and whether it had correctly applied the law in making its determination.

The court began by examining the nature of the proceedings and the timeline of events. It was crucial to determine whether the proceedings in question had indeed been finalised and if the lower court's interpretation of the legal status was correct. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether any errors in the application of the law had occurred, which could have impacted the outcome of the case. After careful analysis of the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the lower court had made an error in its interpretation of the law. This error was significant enough to warrant a re-evaluation of the case by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In light of its findings, the court directed that the prosecutor prepare a stated case outlining the errors of law identified during the appeal. This document was to be submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for further review. Furthermore, the court mandated that the prosecutor deliver this stated case to the Associate no later than 5 pm on 7 February 2020. This directive ensured that the appeal process could proceed in an orderly manner, with all necessary documentation being made available in a timely fashion.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I direct that the prosecutor engross the stated case in the appropriate form for submission to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

(2) I direct that the prosecutor provide the stated case to my Associate on or before 5 pm on 7 February 2020.

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.