SafeWork NSW v KD and JT Westbrook Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2019] NSWDC 15

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	SafeWork NSW v KD & JT Westbrook Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 15
Hearing dates:	6 February 2019
Date of orders:	19 February 2019
Decision date:	19 February 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [69] – [80]
Catchwords:	CRIME – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – duty of employers – risk of death or serious injury – death of worker SENTENCING – aggravating factors – mitigating factors – objective seriousness – general deterrence – specific deterrence – substantial harm, injury, loss or damage – no record of previous convictions – good prospects of rehabilitation – remorse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Fines Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 Nominal Offender v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 SafeWork NSW v KD & JT Westbrook Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 255
Texts Cited:	Macquarie Dictionary Oxford English Dictionary
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	SafeWork NSW v KD and JT Westbrook Pty Ltd
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Moir (SafeWork NSW) Mr D Nagle with Mr A Guy (Defendants)     Solicitors: SafeWork NSW Hancock Alldis and Roskov (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2016/218045
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. KD & JT Westbrook Pty Ltd (the offender) appears for sentence after it was found guilty after trial of an offence contrary to section 32 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act): SafeWork NSW v KD & JT Westbrook Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 255 (the verdict judgment).

2. The offender breached its health and safety duty owed by it under s 19(1) of the Act and thereby exposed Ethan Staker to a risk of death or serious injury.

3. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1.5 million.

Facts

4. The following is a summary of the findings of facts made in the verdict judgment.

Events prior to 22 September 2014

5. The offender operated a livestock business from Lake Stewart (168,000 acres) and an adjoining property Waka Station (Waka) (130,000 acres), raising sheep for wool and meat as well as some cattle. The homesteads at Lake Stewart and Waka were about 8km apart.

6. Lake Stewart is located in far north-west New South Wales and is in close proximity to the dingo fence on the Queensland and South Australian borders. The dingo fence was intended to keep dingoes and wild dogs (collectively dingoes) out of New South Wales, but was not completely effective. Dingoes were feral animals and there was a bounty payable on presentation of a scalp. When working in packs, dingoes could destroy as many as 50 - 100 sheep in one night.

7. Dingoes would be shot at Lake Stewart, if that was possible. On other occasions they were destroyed by more primitive means, including hitting them with vehicles or chasing them on motorcycles until they were tired before hitting them with sticks or rocks.

8. From about September 2008 Bodie Hill was employed by the offender as the manager of Lake Stewart and Waka.

9. Mr Hill reported to Kelvin Westbrook, the director of the offender. Mr Westbrook lived in Loxton, South Australia, where the offender operated a feedlot (the feedlot). Mr Hill would discuss what was happening at Lake Stewart with Mr Westbrook on a regular basis on the telephone and Mr Westbrook visited Lake Stewart a few times a year.

10. Mr Hill was responsible for the day-to-day running of Lake Stewart. He determined what work needed to be done, engaged contractors as required to undertake that work, allocated tasks and supervised the work undertaken. Mr Hill discussed with Mr Westbrook matters that required the expenditure of money, including significant repairs and the engagement of contractors to undertake work. They also discussed the transport arrangements for stock between Lake Stewart and the feedlot.

11. In December 2013, Mr Hill purchased Waka from the offender and began to operate his own livestock business from Waka. At about that time, Mr Hill ceased employment with the offender and was engaged by it as a contractor to manage the livestock business at Lake Stewart. As a contract manager, Mr Hill undertook the same duties he had performed as an employee of the offender. Mr Hill owned and was licensed to operate a gyrocopter, which he used on Lake Stewart for mustering work and to get from one place to another. Mr Hill charged himself at a daily rate for his services to manage Lake Stewart and at an hourly rate for time spent flying the gyrocopter, which included a component for the hire and operating costs of the gyrocopter.

12. Between about 2010 and 2013, Mr Staker was employed as a station hand at Lake Stewart and Waka by the offender. Mr Staker reported to Mr Hill. In that period, Mr Staker performed mustering work as well as general duties such as repairing fences and checking the water and feed supplies for the stock.

13. From May 2013, Mr Staker resigned his employment with the offender to take up contract mustering work with Andrew Killeen on various properties. Mr Staker and Mr Killeen were related by marriage. Between May 2013 and the date of the incident, Mr Staker worked at Lake Stewart on about 6 occasions. Mr Staker was described as a very proficient musterer and a competent motorcycle rider.

14. Mr Killeen was a 21 year old contract musterer, who was engaged to perform mustering work at Lake Stewart and Waka stations. Mr Killeen generally used a motorcycle supplied by Westbrook to perform mustering work at Lake Stewart.

15. On or about 10 September 2014 Mr Hill engaged Mr Staker and Mr Killeen as contract musterers for the purpose of lamb marking. Lamb marking involved mustering the sheep from a paddock and putting them into a stock yard. The sheep were located in the paddock by Mr Hill flying the gyrocopter. The workers also had a good idea as to where the sheep would be according to the prevailing wind conditions. Mr Hill would direct Mr Staker and Mr Killeen to the stock by UHF radio communication. Mr Hill flew in a grid pattern to put the sheep into a mob. The musterers worked their way through the paddock on motorcycles to assist with forming the mob. The musterers would then ride behind the mob to direct them to the stock yard. Once in the stock yard, the lambs would be drafted (separated from the sheep in a race). The lambs would then be marked for the purpose of identification, as belonging to Lake Stewart and the offender. The stock would be counted and those numbers recorded. Lamb marking was ordinarily conducted from about mid-September for 2-3 weeks, depending on stock numbers.

16. There were helmets available to be used by the musterers at Lake Stewart. They were motocross helmets and were stored in the shed. Mr Hill told Mr Killeen about the helmets and advised him to wear one while riding a motorcycle at Lake Stewart. Mr Killeen chose not to. Mr Westbrook had informed another worker about the helmets and advised him to wear one.

17. Mr Staker and Mr Killeen did not wear helmets whilst performing mustering work and generally wore wide brimmed Akubra hats.

18. The offender did not have in place a safe work method statement (SWMS) in relation to the performance of mustering work at Lake Stewart.

19. On or about 14 September 2014 Mr Staker and Mr Killeen arrived at Waka and stayed with Mr Hill and his family for the lamb marking work at Lake Stewart.

The incident on 22 September 2014

20. On or about 22 September 2014 Mr Hill directed the musterers to the Old Woolshed paddock to muster the sheep in that paddock for lamb marking.

21. At about 6.30am on 22 September 2014 Mr Staker and Mr Killeen left Waka to head to the Old Woolshed paddock. It was a cold morning and they rode their motorcycles slowly to avoid getting colder. When they arrived at the gate to the paddock they lit a fire and waited for Mr Hill to arrive in the gyrocopter.

22. The Old Woolshed paddock was approximately 6 kilometres long and 7 kilometres wide or about 18,000-20,000 acres, and consisted of sandy terrain, with open flats between the hills. There were low level mulga and salt bushes, and the ground was somewhat uneven, with mounds and 'washout areas' where water had run away leaving compacted dirt.

23. When Mr Hill arrived he began to fly over the paddock in a grid pattern to locate the sheep and to start them moving. Mr Hill noticed two dingoes on the western edge of the paddock. He radioed Mr Staker and Mr Killeen, saying words to the effect of ‘I have two dogs underneath me’. Mr Staker and Mr Killeen rode towards the gyrocopter. When the musterers approached the dingoes they ran in separate directions. Mr Killeen pursued one dingo and Mr Staker pursued the other.

24. Mr Killeen chased his dingo with the intention of destroying it. He intended to follow it until it tired and so that he could hit it with a rock or a stick. He eventually deliberately collided with the dingo whilst travelling at about 70 kph, causing him to fall off his motorcycle. The dingo then bit him on the leg before escaping through a fence. Mr Hill saw Mr Killeen pick up his bike and presumed that he had fallen off it in the chase. Mr Killeen estimated that the chase lasted for about 30 minutes.

25. Meanwhile, Mr Staker radioed Mr Hill and told him that he had lost his dingo in a swamp area. Mr Hill told Mr Staker to leave it and come over to where Mr Killeen was. A short time later, Mr Hill could not raise Mr Staker on the radio. He flew back towards the swamp area and saw Mr Staker lying face down on the ground next to his bike. Mr Hill radioed Mr Killeen and told him to come to where he was hovering.

26. When Mr Killeen arrived, he observed that Mr Staker was lying face down, and his head looked like it had been pushed back into his shoulders. He had no pulse and was not breathing. Mr Killeen performed cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone for around an hour until Mr Crozier arrived. During this time, he observed a female dingo sitting under a tree about 100m away that was not the dog he had been chasing.

27. Mr Hill remained in the air and radioed the homestead at Waka to contact emergency services. The NSW Ambulance Service recorded the call as being received at 8:05am.

28. Rusty Forbes, a volunteer ambulance officer and registered nurse, attended the incident scene at 10:05am. She conducted an examination of Mr Staker, observing deformity to the right side of his face and skull. Ms Forbes was in contact with a doctor who pronounced Mr Staker dead at the scene.

29. Following the incident, the offender introduced and enforced a requirement that employees and contractors wear helmets at all times while riding motorcycles at Lake Stewart. This policy was implemented at minimal cost to the offender. All workers riding motorcycles at Lake Stewart after the incident complied with this requirement.

The offender’s case on sentence

30. The offender relied on an affidavit of Kelvin Westbrook, the director of the offender, affirmed on 5 February 2019. Mr Westbrook was present in Court and not required for cross-examination. His evidence can be summarised as follows.

31. Mr Westbrook stated that he was deeply saddened by the death of Mr Staker. After the offender became aware Mr Staker’s mother would have difficulty meeting the costs associated with the funeral, it paid for all of the funeral expenses.

32. The offender’s primary operations are based out of their feedlot in Loxton, South Australia. Following the incident, the offender made the decision to cease any form of commercial or agricultural enterprise at Lake Stewart, as it is unable to supervise employees and contractors on a daily basis. The property has been completely destocked and the offender intends to sell it after the next significant rainfall.

33. In response to the incident, the offender modified its systems of work. It introduced a policy, which provides that everyone who operates a motorcycle on the offender’s property or on public roads must wear a helmet. The offender has also made the decision to no longer use the services of contractors, where possible.

34. One month prior to the incident, the offender engaged a Work Health and Safety (WHS) specialist to review and implement WHS policies, procedures and training. The specialist put in place a number of policies and procedures and began training staff at Loxton. The offender is committed to retaining a qualified person in the role of WHS coordinator for as long as the company is in operation.

35. The offender is an active participant in the Loxton community, regularly providing financial support to local organisations and events. In addition, the offender does what it can to assist associates, employees and contractors who are in need, for example, by providing a loan or acting as guarantor.

36. The offender acknowledges that further education regarding the need for contractors to wear helmets would be beneficial, and does not oppose a publication order.

37. The offender also relied on three character references, which attest to its excellent reputation within the community and charitable work. In particular, they note his willingness to help others in the area and generosity in supporting clubs, schools and other members of the local community.

Consideration

38. I have had regard to the objects of the Act set out in section 3 and the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Objective Seriousness

39. The offence is one of some objective gravity.

40. The risk of serious injury or death as a result of a fall from or a collision involving a motorcycle was a foreseeable one. There were occasions when the musterers would ride their motorcycles at speeds of up to 80km/hour and that increased the risk and the gravity of the likely consequences.

41. The offender was aware of the risk and made available helmets compliant with the Australian Standard.

42. The offender was aware through Mr Hill’s observations that the musterers, on occasion, rode their motorcycles in an unsafe manner.

43. The remedial steps available were simple and could be implemented without cost and with minimal inconvenience to the offender. After the incident, the offender introduced a policy requiring persons at the property to wear a helmet if they were riding a motorcycle. This policy could have been enforced with minimal additional supervision. The workers should have also been instructed on the need to wear a helmet and the possible consequences of not doing so.

44. The likelihood of the risk occurring was significant. The offender knew or ought to have known that falls from motorcycles on the property were fairly common.

45. The risk included a risk of death.

46. Mr Staker received significant head injuries as a result of the fall including serious skull fractures in areas in which a helmet would have provided protection. Those fractures were capable of causing his death.

47. I have had regard to the maximum penalty for the offence.

Deterrence

48. The penalty imposed in relation to the offences must provide for general deterrence. PCBUs must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. The community is entitled to expect that both small and large businesses will comply with safety requirements. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [180].

49. There is also a need for specific deterrence, but it is reduced. The offender continues to operate a business that presents some dangers to its workers. To its credit the offender reacted to the incident immediately introducing the requirement for workers to wear a helmet whist riding a motorcycle on the property. The offender has resolved to sell Lake Stewart after the next significant rainfall because Mr Westbrook cannot have personal oversight of workers on the property when he is based in Loxton. I am satisfied that the offender is unlikely to reoffend in New South Wales, in the operation of Lake Stewart.

Aggravating factors

50. The injury, harm and loss caused by the section 32 offences was substantial: section 21A(2)(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In order for the aggravating factor to be established, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the harm was greater or more deleterious than may ordinarily be expected for the offence in question: R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 at [26]. The offence does not require an injury to be sustained but only the creation of a risk.

51. The offender submitted that the aggravating factor cannot be established because of my finding at [143] of the verdict judgment, in which I found that I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the skull fractures sustained by Mr Staker caused his death or that he would not have sustained those fractures if he had been wearing a helmet.

52. In my view, neither of those findings preclude being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the aggravating factor for the following reasons. First, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Staker suffered the skull fractures in the fall from the motorcycle and that is of itself enough to prove actual and substantial harm. Those fractures were sufficient to cause an intracranial haemorrhage and of causing his death. Second, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the skull fractures were sustained because Mr Staker was not wearing a helmet and I accept Dr Gibson’s evidence that the helmet would have provided protection against them.

53. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the injury, harm and loss caused by the offence was substantial.

Mitigating factors

54. The offender does not have any previous convictions: section 21A(3)(e) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender was incorporated in 2008. The offender has operated a feedlot in South Australia as well as the grazing operation at Lake Stewart. Both undertakings involve some risk to workers.

55. The offender is a person of good character: 21A(3)(f) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender had demonstrated itself to be a good corporate citizen. It employs a number of workers in rural areas and has made a significant contribution to the community of Loxton. In addition it has provided financial assistance to a number of its employees.

56. The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation: section 21A(3)(h) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender took immediate steps to introduce the requirement that workers using a motorcycle on the property were required to wear a helmet. The offender had also employed a health and safety officer who was in the process of systematically reviewing the processes at the feedlot, which was a larger operation than Lake Stewart. The offender subsequently developed policies for implementation at Lake Stewart. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.

57. The offender has demonstrated remorse: section 21A(3)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender expressed remorse through the affidavit of Mr Westbrook and demonstrated through the offender’s financial assistance to Mr Staker’s mother. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender has accepted responsibility for its actions and demonstrated genuine contrition and remorse.

58. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender is unlikely to reoffend so as to satisfy the mitigating factor provided for by 21A(3)(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, because the offender continues to operate the feedlot and that operation involves inherent risks to workers. However, I am satisfied that the offender has effectively ceased to operate Lake Stewart and is unlikely to reoffend in New South Wales and that should be taken into account in mitigation of the appropriate penalty.

Adverse Publicity Order

59. A court may make an order under Division 2 of Part 13 of the Act, in addition to any other penalty imposed, if the court finds a person guilty or convicts the person of an offence: section 234 and 235 of the Act.

59. The Court may make an adverse publicity order to publicise the offence, its consequences, the penalty imposed and any related matter: section 236 of the Act.

60. The prosecutor relied on evidence in the sentence proceedings about the desirability of an adverse publicity order in this case. The order was not opposed by the offender. Mr Westbrook accepted in his evidence that further education of rural operators on this issue was required.

61. The prosecutor put forward a form of words for the published notice that was not disputed by the offender (the Notice), which appears at annexure A to this judgment. I have added a reference to the amount of the fine and that the offender is liable for the costs of the proceedings.

62. The offender accepts that it would be appropriate to publish the Notice in The Land, The Farmer Magazine, the Barrier Daily Truth, the Daily Liberal and online for a period of one month on all Fairfax Agriculture Publication Websites.

63. The Land is a weekly publication distributed throughout New South Wales and estimated to reach 89% of farmers. The Farmer Magazine is a monthly publication distributed throughout New South Wales and estimated to reach 95% of farmers. The Barrier Daily Truth is a local daily newspaper published in Tibooburra and the far northwest of New South Wales and has an average readership of 19,000 people. The Daily Liberal is a daily local newspaper published in the Dubbo area and has an average readership of 9,000 people. The Fairfax Agricultural Publication Websites provide access to users in New South Wales as well as the rest of Australia and globally.

64. The prosecution contends that the Notice should also be published in a number of other local newspapers servicing the Orange, Illawarra, Hunter, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, Narrabri, Goulburn and Moree areas.

65. In my view the Notice should be published in the publications agreed to by the offender because those publications are likely to come to the notice of a significant percentage of rural property owners in New South Wales and in the area where the offence was committed.

66. On the evidence, the cost of a full page publication in the relevant publications and the estimated production cost, (which can be used for each publication), is $37,070.23. The order sought by the prosecution and not opposed by the offender is for a publication in the print media that is at least one-third of the page. Accordingly, I expect that the cost of the adverse publicity order to be less than the amount I have referred to.

Other matters

68. I have taken into account that the offender will have to meet a substantial costs order for the proceedings.

Penalty

69. The offender is convicted.

70. The offender contended that I could not take the Victim Impact Statement into account because I could not be satisfied that Mr Staker’s death was ‘a direct result’ of the offence as provided for in section 28(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. There is a distinction to be made between the phrases ‘a result of’ and ‘the result of’. The former implies ‘more than one result’, whilst the latter implies ‘only one result’: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568 at [37]-[38] per McHugh J, approved in Nominal Offender v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 228 CLR 529 at [103] per Kirby J.

71. In this context the word ‘direct’ is used as an adjective. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘direct’ in that context as ‘proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course’ and the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘direct’ as ‘straight, undeviating in course’ and ‘proceeding from antecedent to consequent, from cause to effect’. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Mr Staker was a direct result of the offence. If he had been required to wear a helmet he would not have sustained the skull fractures, which were capable of causing his death. As a matter of common sense I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Staker’s death was a direct result of the offence.

72. Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to take into account the Victim Impact Statement prepared by Mr Staker’s mother. The harm caused to the deceased’s family by the offender is an aspect of the harm done to the community: section 28(4) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

73. I impose a fine of $180,000.

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

75. The offender must publish the Notice set out in Annexure A, by causing it to published on or before 19 March 2019, or the first edition of the relevant publication after that date, in one edition of each of:

1. The Land,

2. The Farmer Magazine,

3. The Barrier Daily Truth, and

4. The Daily Liberal (collectively the print media).

76. The Notice in the print media must:

1. be at least 28 centimetres by 5 columns in size or a size of no less than one third of the page in the newspaper,

2. use a minimum type size of 12 point Times New Roman or equivalent; and

3. be in full colour.

77. The offender must publish the Notice, by causing it to be published on or before 19 March 2019, on all Fairfax Agricultural Publication Websites being the websites for:

1. The Land,

2. Stock & Land Journal,

3. Farm Weekly,

4. FarmOnline National,

5. North Queensland Register,

6. Queensland Country Life (collectively the Fairfax Websites).

78. The Notice on the Fairfax Websites must be viewable by clicking through a tile or icon (the tile) located in a central position of the first page accessed on each of the Fairfax websites. The tile must include the words “IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF NSW” in capital letters and a minimum type size of 16 point Times New Roman or equivalent and prominently in red on a contrasting background. The Notice when accessed through the tile must occupy the entire webpage displayed.

79. The offender is to notify the prosecutor on or before 5pm on 26 March 2019 with evidence that the adverse publicity order in this judgment has been complied with.

80. The offender is to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Annexure A

IMIMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE

In proceedings taken by SafeWork NSW, the District Court of New South Wales has found that K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD has contravened its health and safety duty under section 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ("the Act"), as it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed a worker to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.

The offence relates to the death of a 20 year old worker engaged by K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD as a contract musterer to muster sheep on a rural property about 100km west of Tibooburra, On 22 September 2014, the worker was riding a two-wheeled motorcycle on the property when he fell and was fatally injured. He was not wearing a motorcycle helmet at the time of the incident.

The District Court found that K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD breached the Act by failing to require the deceased worker to wear a helmet, and in particular, a helmet which complied with Australian Standard AS 1698:2006 Protective helmets for vehicle users ("compliant helmet"), thereby exposing him to a risk of death or serious injury in that:

The risk that workers could fall and sustain a serious head injury was known or should have been known by K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD, as motorcycles were operated on the property at varying speeds over uneven terrain and on occasions unsafely;

K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD provided helmets for its workers, however it did not enforce them to be worn and was aware that its workers did not want to wear them even though they were advised on occasions to do so;

Helmets, like personal protective equipment ("PPE") in other industries, can be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it was reasonably practicable for helmets to be worn while riding motorcycles to minimise the risk arising from work in the agricultural industry;

There are now a wide range of compliant helmets in the market that are suitable for mustering work, including motocross helmets, jet helmets and shorty or half helmets, which are lightweight, have enhanced ventilation and sun protection, and do not restrict a riders sideways or peripheral vision, or hearing;

K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD should have implemented and enforced a requirement that all workers, including contractors, wear a compliant helmet while riding a motorcycle, and should have provided information, instruction and training to compel workers to wear a compliant helmet

The District Court has imposed upon K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD;

a conviction for a failure that exposed a worker to a risk of death or serious injury;

a monetary penalty of $180,000 for the offence;

an order that it pay the costs of the proceedings; and

an obligation to publish the details of the order of the Court.

This Notice is published and paid for by K D & J T WESTBROOK PTY LTD in accordance with the Order of the District Court of New South Wales made on 19 February 2019 in the proceedings taken by SafeWork NSW.

**********

Decision last updated: 19 February 2019