Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd - [2019] QMC 5

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 5

PARTIES:

Jason Richardson

(Complainant)

v

Ollis Construction Pty Ltd (ABN 55 606 963 820)

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-153559/18(0)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Industrial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

8^th May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2019 and 25 March 2019. Written submissions on 8^th, 9^th, 26^th and 29^th April 2019.

MAGISTRATE:

Acting Magistrate Carroll

ORDER:

The defendant is fined $75,000 plus professional costs of $1000 and $95.80 filing fees. The fine is referred to SPER. A conviction is not recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – s 17, 18, 19, 32, 275

Penalties and Sentences Act, 1992, s 9, 11, 13 and 48.

CASES:

Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 31

Safework NSW v Carroll Springs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 222

Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney-General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96

Sharon Steward v MAC PLANT PTY LTD and MAC FARMS PTY LTD [2018] QDC 20.

Code of Practice 2011, ‘How to manage work health and safety risks’

Code of Practice 2013, ‘Managing risks of plant in the workplace’

SOLICITORS:

Mr Watson, Counsel for Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, for the complainant.

Mr Hegarty, Solicitor, DWF (Australia) for the defendant.

THE CHARGE

The defendant has pleaded to a charge that being a company duly incorporated according to law and a person who had a health and safety duty under s19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, ‘the Act’ failed to comply with the duty, as far as reasonably practicable, contrary to s 32 of the said Act and the failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.

THE INCIDENT

Shortly before 12:30 PM on 1 June 2017 on instructions from Ryan Ollis;-

(a) One, Bodhii George Dunlop,‘Dunlop’ purchased a new Makita HS7600SP 185mm circular saw which he was to use to rip cut six metre lengths of radiata pine framing timber in half lengthwise. On return to the workplace at 323 Bridge St, Toowoomba neither Ollis nor any other workers were present.

(b) Dunlop placed the lengths of timber between two utilities. He did not secure or clamp the timbers to be cut. He cut the first length of timber as required. While cutting the second length of timber it moved and started to move off the edge of the utility. As he reached down to grab the length of timber with his left hand to prevent it moving further or falling, the saw blade grabbed and jumped on the piece of timber. The moving blade cut across the palm of his left hand from his little pinky finger to the base of his thumb.

THE INJURIES

Dunlop suffered a deep laceration to his left hand across his palm involving lacerations, nerves and bones in his hand. He was initially assisted…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 5
Case: [2019] QMC 5
Decision Date: 8th May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Mr. Richardson and Ollis Construction Pty Ltd under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Mr. Richardson brought a claim against the construction company for alleged breaches of health and safety obligations that resulted in an injury. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether Ollis Construction Pty Ltd had failed to comply with its duties under sections 17, 18, 19 and 32 of the Act, and if so, whether these failures led to the injury sustained by Mr. Richardson. Specifically, the court examined whether the company had taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of workers and if the alleged breaches directly contributed to the incident.

In its decision, the court found that Ollis Construction Pty Ltd had indeed breached its obligations under the Act. The company had not implemented adequate safety measures and failed to provide a safe work environment. These breaches were considered to have directly contributed to the injury suffered by Mr. Richardson. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of $75,000 on the company, along with additional costs of $1000 for professional fees and $95.80 for filing fees. The fine was referred to the State Prosecutions Enforcement Register (SPER), and a conviction was not recorded against the company.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is fined $75,000 plus professional costs of $1000 and $95.80 filing fees. The fine is referred to SPER. A conviction is not recorded.

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.

CITATION:	Richardson v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 5
PARTIES:	Jason Richardson (Complainant) v Ollis Construction Pty Ltd (ABN 55 606 963 820) (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-153559/18(0)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Industrial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	8^th May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Toowoomba
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2019 and 25 March 2019. Written submissions on 8^th, 9^th, 26^th and 29^th April 2019.
MAGISTRATE:	Acting Magistrate Carroll
ORDER:	The defendant is fined $75,000 plus professional costs of $1000 and $95.80 filing fees. The fine is referred to SPER. A conviction is not recorded.
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:	Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – s 17, 18, 19, 32, 275 Penalties and Sentences Act, 1992, s 9, 11, 13 and 48.
CASES:	Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 31 Safework NSW v Carroll Springs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 222 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney-General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96 Sharon Steward v MAC PLANT PTY LTD and MAC FARMS PTY LTD [2018] QDC 20. Code of Practice 2011, ‘How to manage work health and safety risks’ Code of Practice 2013, ‘Managing risks of plant in the workplace’
SOLICITORS:	Mr Watson, Counsel for Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, for the complainant.
Mr Hegarty, Solicitor, DWF (Australia) for the defendant.