SafeWork NSW v Pendle Ham and Bacon Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2025] NSWDC 63
•17 March 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SafeWork NSW v Pendle Ham and Bacon Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 63
[2025] NSWDC 63
17 March 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
SafeWork NSW brought a prosecution against Pendle Ham and Bacon Pty Ltd, a limited partnership, and two individuals, alleging breaches of work health and safety laws in relation to a worker's fall from height. The District Court of New South Wales heard the case, focusing on whether the defendants were liable for the worker's injury under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The central issue was whether the defendants were each a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) under the Act and if they breached their duties to prevent the risk of the worker falling.
The court examined the definitions and scope of PCBUs, considering the roles of the general and limited partners, and the labour hire company. It evaluated the evidence, including admissions and the reliability of testimonies, to determine if the defendants were criminally liable for the worker's exposure to the risk of death or serious injury. The court also assessed whether the defendants had breached their duties under sections 19(1), 20, and 28(b) of the Act.
After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court found that the prosecutor had not proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the Category 1 offences against the general partner, the limited partner, and the labour hire company. Similarly, the prosecutor failed to prove the Category 2 offences against the limited partner and Michael Zammit. However, the court concluded that the general partner and the labour hire company failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment, warranting additional sentencing considerations. The court scheduled a sentencing hearing for 31 March 2025 to address the remaining charges against the general partner and the labour hire company.
The court examined the definitions and scope of PCBUs, considering the roles of the general and limited partners, and the labour hire company. It evaluated the evidence, including admissions and the reliability of testimonies, to determine if the defendants were criminally liable for the worker's exposure to the risk of death or serious injury. The court also assessed whether the defendants had breached their duties under sections 19(1), 20, and 28(b) of the Act.
After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court found that the prosecutor had not proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the Category 1 offences against the general partner, the limited partner, and the labour hire company. Similarly, the prosecutor failed to prove the Category 2 offences against the limited partner and Michael Zammit. However, the court concluded that the general partner and the labour hire company failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment, warranting additional sentencing considerations. The court scheduled a sentencing hearing for 31 March 2025 to address the remaining charges against the general partner and the labour hire company.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Recklessness
-
Strict Liability
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Breach of Trust
-
Causation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
SafeWork NSW v Tattam Express Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 7
Cases Citing This Decision
4
SafeWork NSW v Pendle Ham & Bacon Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2025] NSWDC 399
SafeWork NSW v Tattam Express Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWIC 7
SafeWork NSW v Pendle Ham & Bacon Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2025] NSWDC 399
Cases Cited
50
Statutory Material Cited
13
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak
[2009] HCA 48
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak
[2009] HCA 48