District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Safework NSW v Orbit Formwork Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 685 Hearing dates: 18 November 2019 Date of orders: 22 November 2019 Decision date: 22 November 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Russell SC DCJ Decision: (1) The offender is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $240,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Order the offender to pay a fine of $180,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order the offender to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – risk of death or serious injury
SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – plea of guilty – general deterrence – specific deterrence – appropriate penalty
COSTS - prosecution costs
OTHER – fall from height over unprotected edgeLegislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (NSW)Cases Cited: Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176
Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
Safework NSW v Emu Group Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 537
Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465Texts Cited: Australian Standard AS 4494 Temporary Edge Protection
Formwork, Code of Practice 1998, WorkCover NSW
General Guide for Formwork and Falsework, SafeWork Australia, July 2014
Guide to Formwork, SafeWork Australia, July 2014
Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces Code of Practice, April 2016Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Orbit Formwork Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
P McEniery (Prosecutor)
R Reitano (Defendant)
SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Takchi & Associates(Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/95581
Judgment
-
This is yet another case involving a fall from height resulting in serious injury. In previous sentencing judgments this court has remarked upon the high number of such cases. It is almost an epidemic. The prosecutor tendered statistics (PX2) showing that in the three years between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019 there were 1,414 falls related incidents reported to Safework NSW, an average of nine a week. In that period there were 22 deaths. In many of the cases which have come…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Safework NSW v Orbit Formwork Pty Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 685
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court identified that the offence involved a significant breach of work health and safety laws, which had the potential to cause serious injury or death. The legal issues that the court needed to address included the extent to which the company’s conduct fell short of the required duty of care, the objective seriousness of the incident, and the appropriate penalty considering factors such as the plea of guilty, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. The court also had to determine the costs associated with the prosecution.
In rendering its decision, the court found that the company was guilty of the offence. It assessed the objective seriousness of the offence and took into account the mitigating factors, such as the company’s plea of guilty, and the aggravating factors, such as the potential for serious injury or death. The court decided that a fine of $240,000 was appropriate but reduced it by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty, resulting in a fine of $180,000. Additionally, the court ordered that 50% of the fine be paid to the prosecutor and that the company pay the prosecution's costs as agreed or assessed. The court aimed to ensure both general and specific deterrence through the penalty imposed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The offender is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $240,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Order the offender to pay a fine of $180,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order the offender to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.
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.