SafeWork NSW v The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWIC 21

Industrial Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 21
Hearing dates: 5 September 2025
Date of orders: 14 November 2025
Decision date: 14 November 2025
Before: Paingakulam J
Decision:
(1) I convict The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd of the offence as charged.
(2) I impose a fine of $90,000.
(3) The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — work health and safety — offences — category 3 — risk of other persons being struck by collapse of cabinet that was not securely fixed to a wall — workers not provided instructions on how to assemble and fit cabinet in English — worker did not use all L-brackets provided —section 10(1)(a) application — not an appropriate matter for disposal pursuant to s 10(1)(a)
SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — De Simoni principle — pleaded risk could lead Court to De Simoni error — pleaded risk amended — both parties bear a responsibility to ensure that material tendered on sentence does not offend De Simoni rule — evidence that permitted an inference that the workers were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death disregarded
SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — aggravating factors — mitigating factors —deterrence — reduced need for specific deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Barton v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 285
Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51; [1988] HCA 67
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37
BW v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 176
Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
SafeWork NSW v Coplex Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 165
SafeWork NSW v Hibernian Contracting Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 4
SafeWork NSW v Menai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 8
Schultz v Tamworth City Council (1995) 58 IR 221
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
Unity Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Wong v Melinda Group Pty…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SafeWork NSW v The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWIC 21
Decision Date: 14 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SafeWork NSW brought an action against The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd in relation to a workplace health and safety offence. The dispute arose from the failure to securely fix a cabinet to a wall, which posed a risk of collapse and injury to workers. The case was heard in the NSW Local Court. The central legal issues were whether the offence was appropriately categorised as a serious one, and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the offence. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly those relating to the De Simoni principle and the appropriate level of deterrence.

The court found that the risk posed by the unsecured cabinet did indeed constitute a serious offence. It noted that the workers were not given instructions in English on how to assemble and fit the cabinet, and one worker did not use all the L-brackets provided, which exacerbated the risk. The court rejected the argument that the matter was suitable for disposal under section 10(1)(a), finding that the risk could lead to a De Simoni error, which would undermine the court’s sentencing process. Both parties were held responsible for ensuring that the evidence presented did not breach this principle. The court also disregarded evidence that suggested the workers were exposed to a serious risk of injury or death, focusing instead on the inherent risks posed by the unsafe conditions.

In sentencing, the court considered the principles of deterrence and the reduced need for specific deterrence due to the company's previous good record. The court imposed a fine of $90,000, which was deemed sufficient to achieve general deterrence while acknowledging the company's previous compliance. The fine was also structured so that 50% would be paid to the prosecutor. The court ordered that The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

The orders of the court included the conviction of The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd, a fine of $90,000, and the payment of the prosecutor's costs. Additionally, half of the fine was directed to the prosecutor, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for adequate deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I convict The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd of the offence as charged.

(2) I impose a fine of $90,000.

(3) The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

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 The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 21
Hearing dates:	5 September 2025
Date of orders:	14 November 2025
Decision date:	14 November 2025
Before:	Paingakulam J
Decision:	(1) I convict The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd of the offence as charged. (2) I impose a fine of $90,000. (3) The Danebritt Group Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. (4) Pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW — work health and safety — offences — category 3 — risk of other persons being struck by collapse of cabinet that was not securely fixed to a wall — workers not provided instructions on how to assemble and fit cabinet in English — worker did not use all L-brackets provided —section 10(1)(a) application — not an appropriate matter for disposal pursuant to s 10(1)(a) SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — De Simoni principle — pleaded risk could lead Court to De Simoni error — pleaded risk amended — both parties bear a responsibility to ensure that material tendered on sentence does not offend De Simoni rule — evidence that permitted an inference that the workers were exposed to a risk of serious injury or death disregarded SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — aggravating factors — mitigating factors —deterrence — reduced need for specific deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Fines Act 1996 (NSW) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Barton v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 285 Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51; [1988] HCA 67 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37 BW v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 176 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 SafeWork NSW v Coplex Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 165 SafeWork NSW v Hibernian Contracting Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 4 SafeWork NSW v Menai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 8 Schultz v Tamworth City Council (1995) 58 IR 221 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Unity Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Wong v Melinda Group Pty…