Safework NSW v Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd

In the case of Safework NSW v Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd, the matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd, was prosecuted by Safework NSW under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for failing to comply with its duty of care towards workers, resulting in a fatality. The incident involved a site supervisor and an apprentice roofer who were replacing a polycarbonate skylight with metal sheets. The apprentice roofer fell through the roof after stepping on a brittle polycarbonate sheet, resulting in fatal injuries. The prosecution argued that the company failed to ensure that the workers had their safety harnesses connected to the available static line, thereby exposing them to the risk of death or serious injury.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the workers, whether there was a failure to comply with that duty, and whether that failure exposed the workers to the risk of death or serious injury. The court considered the reasonable practicability of implementing safety measures, the likelihood and foreseeability of the risk, and what the defendant should have reasonably known. The court also examined whether there was a causal relationship between the defendant's actions and the risk, as well as the measures that should have been taken to guard against such risks.

The court found that the elements of the offence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing that the defendant owed a duty of care to the workers and that this duty was not fulfilled. The court concluded that the failure to implement safety measures, such as ensuring that the workers' safety harnesses were connected to the static line, exposed the workers to the risk of death or serious injury. Consequently, the court found Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd guilty of the offence.

The court ordered that the elements of the offence set out in the summons had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant was guilty of the offence. The court scheduled a sentence hearing to be held at a later date convenient to both parties.