Orr v Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd

The case of Orr v Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd involved a prosecution under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The primary judge had published reasons for the decision but had not yet issued the final orders. The Court was required to consider the utility of the stated case procedure and whether the primary judge was obligated to address certain components of an element of the offence in a specific order. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the primary judge had the power to withdraw questions once they had been properly submitted.

The Court began by noting that the primary judge had the authority to submit questions to the Court before making the final orders, and that there was no power to withdraw properly submitted questions. The Court then addressed the contention that the primary judge had an obligation to address components of an element of the offence in a particular order. The Court found that there was no such requirement. The questions posed by the parties concerned the relevance of the reasonable foreseeability of the risk and the accident in which the risk manifested. The Court was limited to strictly answering the questions posed, and it answered them "yes, but not necessarily determinative". The balance of questions posed did not arise or were not appropriate to answer.

In conclusion, the Court found that the primary judge did not have an obligation to address components of an element of the offence in a specific order. The questions posed were answered, but the Court noted that the answers were not necessarily determinative. The primary judge was not required to address the components in a specific order. The Court did not consider the other questions posed as they did not arise or were not appropriate to answer.