District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Orr v LakeCoal Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 178 Hearing dates: 14 May 2019 Date of orders: 16 May 2019 Decision date: 16 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Russell SC DCJ Decision: (1) I find that the prosecutor does not need leave to continue this prosecution.
(2) Pursuant to r 53.28 of the District Court Rules 1973, the prosecutor is granted leave to tender the following expert reports as the evidence-in-chief of those expert witnesses:
(a) Report of Mr Jason Wagstaffe, engineer and workplace safety risk management expert, dated 3 July 2018;
(b) Report of Mr Martin Burns, registered land surveyor, undated but finalised 3 December 2018;
(c) Report of Ms Judy Turnbull, metallurgist, dated 7 December 2018;
(d) Report of Mr Tim White, forensic mechanical engineer, dated 7 December 2018.
(3) Pursuant to r 53.28 of the District Court Rules 1973, the prosecutor is granted leave to file affidavits of the following witnesses and to tender those affidavits as the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses:
(a) Inspector Gregory Delmenico;
(b) Inspector Steven Bath;
(c) Inspector Andrew Tull; and
(d) Inspector Timothy Flowers.(4) The prosecutor shall provide to the court a hearing plan setting out the proposed order of witnesses by 28 May 2019.
(5) Liberty to apply on three days notice.Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - company subject to creditors’ voluntary winding up – whether prosecutor needs leave to continue prosecution – s 471B, s 500(2) Corporations Act 2001 (C’th) Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (C’th)
District Court Rules 1973
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011Cases Cited: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Maltby) v Josef & Sons Contracting Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2002] NSWIRComm 226
Worksafe Western Australia Commissioner v Australian Countertop Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2014] WASC 413Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Stephen James Orr (Prosecutor)
LakeCoal Pty Limited (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K Nomchong SC (Prosecutor)
Lander & Rogers (Prosecutor)
File Number(s): 2018/23681
Judgment
Introduction
-
This prosecution under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 is listed for an undefended hearing before me commencing on 3 June 2019. Senior counsel for the prosecutor appeared before me on 14 May 2019 to raise two issues in preparation for the trial. The first concerned the corporate status of the defendant, and whether leave would need to be sought to continue these proceedings against it. The second matter concerned directions for the matter of presentation of evidence at the undefended hearing.
Corporate status of the defendant
-
Pursuant to a direction made on 14 May 2019, the prosecutor filed an affidavit of Mr Battagello solicitor dated 15 May 2019, setting out evidence in relation to the corporate status of the defendant. In summary, the affidavit proves the following matters:
Prior to 5 March 2019 the defendant was a company in external administration, under the control of an administrator;
On 5 March 2019 a special resolution of the creditors of the defendant was passed, resolving…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Orr v LakeCoal Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecutor required leave to continue the prosecution against LakeCoal Pty Ltd, a company in creditors' voluntary winding up. The court needed to consider the implications of the winding up on the prosecutor's ability to continue with the proceedings and whether leave was necessary under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act. The court also needed to decide whether the prosecutor could tender specific expert reports and witness affidavits as evidence-in-chief.
The court found that the prosecutor did not need leave to continue the prosecution. It reasoned that the statutory provisions did not require leave in these circumstances, and the winding up of the company did not impede the prosecution's ability to proceed. Additionally, the court granted the prosecutor leave to tender specific expert reports and witness affidavits as evidence-in-chief, noting that these measures would facilitate a fair and efficient trial. The court also required the prosecutor to provide a hearing plan by a specified date.
In conclusion, the court determined that the prosecutor could continue the prosecution without needing leave, granted permission to tender expert reports and affidavits as evidence-in-chief, and required the prosecutor to submit a hearing plan. The court's decision ensures that the prosecution can proceed while accommodating the procedural needs of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) I find that the prosecutor does not need leave to continue this prosecution.
(2) Pursuant to r 53.28 of the District Court Rules 1973, the prosecutor is granted leave to tender the following expert reports as the evidence-in-chief of those expert witnesses:
(a) Report of Mr Jason Wagstaffe, engineer and workplace safety risk management expert, dated 3 July 2018;
(b) Report of Mr Martin Burns, registered land surveyor, undated but finalised 3 December 2018;
(c) Report of Ms Judy Turnbull, metallurgist, dated 7 December 2018;
(d) Report of Mr Tim White, forensic mechanical engineer, dated 7 December 2018.
(3) Pursuant to r 53.28 of the District Court Rules 1973, the prosecutor is granted leave to file affidavits of the following witnesses and to tender those affidavits as the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses:
(a) Inspector Gregory Delmenico;
(b) Inspector Steven Bath;
(c) Inspector Andrew Tull; and
(d) Inspector Timothy Flowers.
(4) The prosecutor shall provide to the court a hearing plan setting out the proposed order of witnesses by 28 May 2019.
(5) Liberty to apply on three days notice.
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.