SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd - [2020] NSWDC 39

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 39
Hearing dates: 26 February 2020
Date of orders: 09 March 2020
Decision date: 09 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
(1)   The trial date of 16 March 2020 is vacated.
(2)   I direct that the defendant identify any request for particulars (that it has already made, subject to any refinement that may be appropriate in accordance with these reasons) for which it seeks a response from the prosecutor on or before 5.00pm on Friday 13 March 2020.
(3)   I direct that the prosecutor provide a response to the requests of the defendant as described in (2) on or before 5.00pm on Friday 20 March 2020.
(4)   I list the matter before me on Monday 30 March 2020 at 9.30am to fix a trial date and to hear any further necessary arguments on the particulars issue.
(5)   I direct that each party serve and provide to my Associate with written submissions on the particulars issue, if it is to be further argued, on or before 5.00pm on Friday 27 March 2020.
(6)   I reserve the questions of costs arising from the vacation of the trial date and the particulars issue.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE- Vacate hearing dates- reasons
Legislation Cited: Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Cases Cited: Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister [2015] VSCA 344
De Romanis v Sibraa [1977] 2 NSWLR 264
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531
Marchesi v Barnes [1970] VR 434
S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266
Veysey v R (2011) 33 VR 277
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:    M Cahill (Prosecutor)
      M Shume (Defendant)
Solicitors:   SafeWork NSW, Corporate Services,          Department of Customer Service
      Kells (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/74587
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd (the defendant) has pleaded not guilty to a charge that as a person who had a health and safety duty under section 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act), it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed Paul Walsh, a worker at work in the business or undertaking, to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.
The matter was listed for hearing on 16 March 2020 with an estimate of 5 days.
On 26 February 2020, the defendant made an application to vacate the hearing date on the basis that it did not have an expert report in response to the prosecutor’s expert report, and sought an order that the prosecutor provide certain particulars which the defendant says are necessary for it to defend the charge. On the last occasion, I indicated that my preliminary view was that the hearing should be vacated on the basis of the expert issue alone, and that I wished to consider the particulars issue more carefully by reference…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 39
Case: [2020] NSWDC 39
Decision Date: 09 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SafeWork NSW filed an application against Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd in the Local Court, seeking to vacate the scheduled trial date. The dispute involves allegations of breaches of occupational health and safety regulations. The primary focus of the application was to address the issue of particulars and to reschedule the trial date to allow for adequate preparation and discussion on this matter. The court had to determine whether the trial date should be vacated to allow for further clarification on the particulars requested by the defendant and the appropriate timing for the prosecutor to respond.

The court considered the necessity of vacating the trial date to allow the defendant to make any additional requests for particulars and for the prosecutor to respond in a timely manner. The presiding magistrate emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties have sufficient information to prepare adequately for the trial. The court ruled that it was in the interests of justice to vacate the trial date to facilitate this process, while also directing the defendant to identify any further requests for particulars by a specified deadline. Additionally, the court mandated that the prosecutor provide a response to these requests within a set timeframe and scheduled a subsequent hearing to fix a new trial date and address any remaining issues regarding the particulars.

The court's decision involved a careful balancing of the need for a fair trial against the necessity of ensuring that both parties had the information required to prepare effectively. The magistrate concluded that vacating the trial date was necessary to allow for the clarification of particulars, which was a critical step in ensuring a fair and just outcome. The court set out clear timelines for the defendant to identify further requests and for the prosecutor to respond, and scheduled a further hearing to address the particulars issue and to set a new trial date. The court reserved the question of costs arising from the vacation of the trial date and the particulars issue, indicating that this would be determined at a later stage.

The orders of the court included the vacating of the original trial date, directing the defendant to identify any additional requests for particulars, mandating a response from the prosecutor, and scheduling a new hearing to set a trial date and address the particulars issue. The court also required written submissions from both parties on the particulars issue, if it was to be further argued, and reserved the decision on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The trial date of 16 March 2020 is vacated.

(2) I direct that the defendant identify any request for particulars (that it has already made, subject to any refinement that may be appropriate in accordance with these reasons) for which it seeks a response from the prosecutor on or before 5.00pm on Friday 13 March 2020.

(3) I direct that the prosecutor provide a response to the requests of the defendant as described in (2) on or before 5.00pm on Friday 20 March 2020.

(4) I list the matter before me on Monday 30 March 2020 at 9.30am to fix a trial date and to hear any further necessary arguments on the particulars issue.

(5) I direct that each party serve and provide to my Associate with written submissions on the particulars issue, if it is to be further argued, on or before 5.00pm on Friday 27 March 2020.

(6) I reserve the questions of costs arising from the vacation of the trial date and the particulars issue.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 39
Hearing dates:	26 February 2020
Date of orders:	09 March 2020
Decision date:	09 March 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	(1) The trial date of 16 March 2020 is vacated. (2) I direct that the defendant identify any request for particulars (that it has already made, subject to any refinement that may be appropriate in accordance with these reasons) for which it seeks a response from the prosecutor on or before 5.00pm on Friday 13 March 2020. (3) I direct that the prosecutor provide a response to the requests of the defendant as described in (2) on or before 5.00pm on Friday 20 March 2020. (4) I list the matter before me on Monday 30 March 2020 at 9.30am to fix a trial date and to hear any further necessary arguments on the particulars issue. (5) I direct that each party serve and provide to my Associate with written submissions on the particulars issue, if it is to be further argued, on or before 5.00pm on Friday 27 March 2020. (6) I reserve the questions of costs arising from the vacation of the trial date and the particulars issue.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE- Vacate hearing dates- reasons
Legislation Cited:	Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Cases Cited:	Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister [2015] VSCA 344 De Romanis v Sibraa [1977] 2 NSWLR 264 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 Marchesi v Barnes [1970] VR 434 S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266 Veysey v R (2011) 33 VR 277
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: M Cahill (Prosecutor) M Shume (Defendant) Solicitors: SafeWork NSW, Corporate Services, Department of Customer Service Kells (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2018/74587
Publication restriction:	None