SafeWork NSW v Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd (No. 2)

Case

[2023] NSWDC 16

08 February 2023


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
SafeWork NSW v Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 16 [2023] NSWDC 16 08 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SafeWork NSW prosecuted Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd in the Local Court of New South Wales for violations of work health and safety legislation. The company was engaged in providing labor to metal roofing companies and was involved in the removal of asbestos roofing sheeting from a building. The incident arose when timber purlins broke under the weight of stacks of roof sheets, causing two workers to fall through the roof and wire safety mesh to the concrete ground below. A third worker managed to hold onto a roof sheet and avoid falling. The prosecution alleged that the company failed to verify a structural inspection of the roof by a qualified person, did not prohibit work until such an inspection was conducted, and failed to obtain and enforce a safe work procedure or safe work method statement.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd had breached its duty under work health and safety legislation, and if so, what penalty was appropriate. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the breach, the mitigating and aggravating factors, the company's plea of guilty, and the purposes of deterrence and capacity to pay. The company's conduct was assessed in light of the statutory obligations that duty holders cannot delegate or transfer their responsibilities, and more than one person can have a duty.

The court found that Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd was guilty of the charges, acknowledging the severity of the incident and the failure to adhere to critical safety protocols. The court reduced the fine by 25% due to the early plea of guilty. The objective seriousness of the breach was high, given the risk of death or serious injury. The court ordered Prime Metal Roofing Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $120,000, with 50% of this amount to be paid to the prosecutor. Additionally, the company was directed to cover the prosecutor’s costs. This decision underscored the importance of stringent adherence to work health and safety regulations to prevent such incidents in the future.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Criminal Liability

  • Sentencing

  • Costs

  • Limitation Periods

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

21

Statutory Material Cited

5

Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67
Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67