SafeWork NSW v BI Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v BI Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 364
Hearing dates: 12 June 2025
Date of orders: 17 September 2025
Decision date: 17 September 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Strathdee DCJ
Decision:

(1)   BI Australia Pty Ltd is found guilty.

(2)   BI Australia Pty Ltd is convicted.

(3)   I order that BI Australia Pty Ltd pay a fine of $400,000.

(4) I order pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

(5)   BI Australia Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutors costs which are not to exceed $40,000.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – risk of death or serious injury – maximum penalty

EXPARTE PROSECUTIONS – elements of the offence

COSTS – prosecutor’s costs

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A,

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW), s 8(2)

Fines Act 1996 (NSW), s 122

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 7, 12A, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 46

Cases Cited:

Baida Poultry Pty Ltd v R (2012) 246 CLR 92

Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37

Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71

Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd v Callaghan (1985) 11 IR 467

Director of Public Prosecutions v Vibro-Pile (Aust) [2016] VSCA 55

Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd v Buckley (1952) 87 CLR 313 at 320

Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384

Genner Constructions Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2001] NSWIRComm 267

Hammersley Iron Pty Ltd v Robertson (Western Australia Supreme Court, 2 October 1988, unrep)

Haynes v CI & D Manufacturing Pty Limited (No 2); Callaghan v CI & D Industries Pty Limited (No 2) (1995) 60 IR 455

Inspector Ching v Bros Bins Systems Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 197

Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531

Kirwin v The Pilbura Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 99

LaingO’Rourke (BMC) Pty Ltd v Kirwin [2011] WASCA 117

Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25

Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 147 IR 117; [2005] NSWIRComm 61

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39

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

Nash v Resource Pacific Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 45

Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399; [2012] VSCA 82

R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1983] 1 WLR 1171

R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304

R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434;

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SafeWork NSW v BI Australia 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWDC 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SafeWork NSW v BI Australia Pty Ltd, the matter before the court involved allegations of breaches in work health and safety laws against BI Australia Pty Ltd. SafeWork NSW prosecuted the company for failing to meet its duty under the work health and safety legislation, which resulted in a risk of death or serious injury. The court was tasked with determining whether the company had contravened the relevant provisions and, if so, what the appropriate penalties and orders should be.

The key legal issues in this case centred on the elements of the offence as outlined in the work health and safety legislation and whether BI Australia Pty Ltd had indeed breached its duty. The court had to consider the evidence presented to establish the company's liability and the appropriate penalty for the offence. Furthermore, the court was required to address the matter of costs, specifically whether the prosecutor's costs should be awarded to SafeWork NSW and, if so, the amount.

The court found BI Australia Pty Ltd guilty of the offence, concluding that the company had indeed failed in its duty under the work health and safety legislation. The judge determined that the fine should be set at $400,000, with half of that amount payable to the prosecutor pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW). Additionally, the court ordered BI Australia Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor's costs, not exceeding $40,000. The judge meticulously reviewed the evidence and the legal framework to arrive at these conclusions.

The final orders included the conviction of BI Australia Pty Ltd, a fine of $400,000, a requirement for the company to pay 50% of the fine to the prosecutor, and an order for the company to cover the prosecutor's costs, up to a specified limit. These orders were reflective of the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the need for appropriate penalties and compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) BI Australia Pty Ltd is found guilty.

(2) BI Australia Pty Ltd is convicted.

(3) I order that BI Australia Pty Ltd pay a fine of $400,000.

(4) I order pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

(5) BI Australia Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutors costs which are not to exceed $40,000.

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.