SafeWork NSW v 2 Types Constructions Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2025] NSWDC 435
•29 October 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SafeWork NSW v 2 Types Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 435
[2025] NSWDC 435
29 October 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of SafeWork NSW versus 2 Types Constructions Pty Ltd, the NSW District Court was tasked with a prosecution related to a workplace incident that resulted in a serious injury. The incident occurred when an individual fell through an unprotected skylight while on the roof of a construction site, leading to significant personal injury. The court was required to determine whether the company had breached its duty under work health and safety laws by failing to implement adequate measures to prevent unauthorised access to the roof, thereby exposing workers to a serious risk of death or injury.
The primary legal issue was whether 2 Types Constructions Pty Ltd had adequately discharged its duty to ensure a safe working environment. The court needed to assess the adequacy of the company’s risk management practices, particularly in light of the unprotected skylight that led to the fall. The court also had to consider various sentencing factors, including the objective seriousness of the breach, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the company's plea of guilty.
The court found that the company had indeed failed in its duty to provide a safe working environment, which directly contributed to the incident. The court took into account the early plea of guilty, reducing the fine by 25%. The objective seriousness of the breach, marked by the risk of death or serious injury, was deemed substantial. The court ordered a fine of $360,000, reduced to $270,000 due to the guilty plea, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor. Additionally, the company was directed to pay the prosecution costs, emphasising the importance of general and specific deterrence in such cases.
The primary legal issue was whether 2 Types Constructions Pty Ltd had adequately discharged its duty to ensure a safe working environment. The court needed to assess the adequacy of the company’s risk management practices, particularly in light of the unprotected skylight that led to the fall. The court also had to consider various sentencing factors, including the objective seriousness of the breach, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the company's plea of guilty.
The court found that the company had indeed failed in its duty to provide a safe working environment, which directly contributed to the incident. The court took into account the early plea of guilty, reducing the fine by 25%. The objective seriousness of the breach, marked by the risk of death or serious injury, was deemed substantial. The court ordered a fine of $360,000, reduced to $270,000 due to the guilty plea, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor. Additionally, the company was directed to pay the prosecution costs, emphasising the importance of general and specific deterrence in such cases.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Sentencing
-
Plea of Guilty
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
3
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14
R v McNaughton
[2006] NSWCCA 242