Legal Research
Cases
Supagas Pty Ltd v The King

Supagas Pty Ltd v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 106 21 May 2025

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Occupational Health and Safety

Failing to Provide and Maintain a Safe Working Environment

Failing to Ensure Safety for Non-Employees

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0035

SUPAGAS PTY LTD	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL CJ, PRIEST and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 106
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Supagas Pty Ltd (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 15 February 2023, Judge M.P Bourke)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Occupational health and safety – Failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees (two charges) and failing to ensure that persons other than employees were not exposed to risks to health and safety (one charge) – Applicant found guilty of one charge of failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees by failure to provide and maintain necessary systems of work and failing to ensure that persons other than employees were not exposed to risks to health and safety – Applicant found not guilty of failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees by failure to provide necessary information instruction or training – Whether convictions inconsistent with acquittal – Verdicts not inconsistent – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Occupational health and safety – Failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees by failure to provide and maintain necessary systems of work – Prosecutor’s reference in final address to checklist – Checklist not opened – Checklist not a particular of charge – Whether reference to checklist expanded prosecution case – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Occupational health and safety – Failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees – Jury question during deliberations as to whether ‘process and procedures that ensure a safe system of work need to be documented’ – Whether trial judge’s answer ‘no’ erroneous – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Occupational health and safety – Failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees and failing to ensure that persons other than employees were not exposed to risks to health and safety – Without conviction fined $275,000 on each charge (total $550,000) – Whether judge erred in assessing gravity of offending – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Dr D Neal SC with Mr D Oldfield
Respondent:		Ms E Ruddle KC with Mr E Dober
Solicitors
Applicant:	Seyfarth Shaw Australia
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

---

NIALL CJ
PRIEST JA
TAYLOR JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court charged the applicant, Supagas Pty Ltd (‘Supagas’), with failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees (two charges – charges 1 and 2) and failing to ensure that persons other than employees were not exposed to risks to health and safety (one charge – charge 3).
Each charge on the indictment was laid under s 21…

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 Supagas Pty Ltd v The King

Details

AGLC: Supagas Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 106
Case: [2025] VSCA 106
Decision Date: 21 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Supagas Pty Ltd v The King involved an appeal against the conviction and sentencing of Supagas Pty Ltd on charges related to occupational health and safety. The company was found guilty of one charge of failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees by failing to provide and maintain necessary systems of work and failing to ensure that persons other than employees were not exposed to risks to health and safety. However, it was acquitted on the charge of failing to provide and maintain a safe working environment for employees by failure to provide necessary information, instruction, or training. The court was required to determine whether the convictions were inconsistent with the acquittal, whether the prosecutor's reference to a checklist during the final address expanded the prosecution case beyond the particulars of charge, and whether the trial judge's response to a jury question during deliberations was erroneous. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the convictions were not inconsistent with the acquittal as each charge pertained to different aspects of the company's obligations under occupational health and safety laws. Regarding the prosecutor's reference to a checklist, the court found that since the checklist was not opened as evidence and was not a particular of charge, the reference did not expand the prosecution case. Concerning the trial judge's response to a jury question, the court determined that the judge's answer was not erroneous as it was consistent with the law. Lastly, in assessing the sentence, the court found that the judge did not err in determining the gravity of the offending and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed by the court, with leave to appeal refused on all grounds. Therefore, the convictions and sentence imposed on Supagas Pty Ltd were upheld.

Orders