Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCATA
  3. 2022
  4. The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act - [2022] QCATA 127

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act[2022] QCATA 127

The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act[2022] QCATA 127

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act [2022] QCATA 127

PARTIES:

The star entertainment qld limited

(applicant/appellant)

v

THE REGULATOR UNDER THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY ACT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL213-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR203-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2022

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

  1. In relation to ground 1 of the appeal, and the related part of ground 6, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
  3. The parties must file in the Tribunal, and serve a copy on the other party, any written submissions in relation to costs of the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days of the delivery of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – where appeal of decision of Tribunal to confirm decision of respondent to issue improvement notices to the applicant – whether Tribunal made error of law or fact – where error of fact whether leave to appeal should be granted

ELECTRICAL SAFETY – DANGEROUS ELECTRICAL EVENT – IMPROVEMENT NOTICE – where no notification to the regulator – where electrical equipment removed – whether dangerous electrical event – whether applicant aware of dangerous electrical event – whether arose out of the conduct of the business – whether electrical work – whether improvement notices valid

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 7

Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld),  s 12, s 146, s 146A

Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 (Qld), reg 18, reg. 265, reg 269

Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women v PJC and the Public Guardian [2019] QCATA 109

Harrison and Anor v Meehan [2016] QCATA 197

Nettleton v Vero Insurance Limited & Anor [2008] VSC 554

The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

JAS Ford of Counsel, instructed by Mills Oakley

Respondent:

LM Willson of Counsel, instructed by the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    This is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal at first instance to uphold a decision of the respondent to issue improvement notices to the applicant pursuant to the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) (‘the Act’) and the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’).
  2. [2]
    Under the Act, an inspector may issue an ‘improvement notice’ where he/she reasonably believes that a person is contravening a provision of the Act or has contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.[1] A contravention might arise where there is a ‘dangerous electrical event’[2] (‘DEE’) and a person has not complied with the duty specified under reg. 265 of the Regulation to notify the regulator of the event, or the duty to preserve the event site until an inspector arrives in accordance with reg. 269(3) of the Regulation.
  3. [3]
    Regulations 265(1) and 269(1) and (3) provide:

265Duty of person conducting a business or undertaking to notify of serious electrical incident or dangerous electrical event

(1)A person who conducts a business or undertaking must ensure that the regulator is notified, in a way that complies with subsections (2) to (4) and by the fastest means possible, immediately after becoming aware that a serious electrical incident or dangerous electrical event arising out of the conduct of the business or undertaking has occurred.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units.

269Duty to preserve incident or event sites

  1. (1)
    This section applies if a serious electrical incident or dangerous electrical event happens at a place.

…

  1. (3)
    A person must not move or otherwise interfere with any electrical equipment, or part of any electrical equipment, involved in the happening of the incident or event.

Maximum penalty— 40 penalty units.

  1. [4]
    On 9 March 2019, an employee of the applicant was changing a light bulb on the applicant’s business premises when he received an electric shock from exposed wires in one of the light fittings.[3] Later that month, an electrician engaged by the applicant replaced the light fitting and sent the disconnected fitting back to the supplier.[4] Following a complaint made by the employee, on 4 April 2019 an Electrical Safety Inspector appointed under the Act attended the premises.[5] The Inspector was of the view that the applicant was not aware of the duty under s 269(3) of the Regulation not to remove any electrical equipment involved in the happening of a DEE and, further, that the applicant was under the impression that the incident was not a notifiable event under the Regulation.[6] Given that the applicant did not agree that the event was a reportable DEE, the Inspector formed the view that the applicant was not going to report similar events in the future and, accordingly, in terms of s 146 of the Act, it was likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.[7] 
  2. [5]
    On 4 April 2019, an Inspector issued Improvement Notice 1035329, stating that the Inspector reasonably believed that the applicant had contravened reg. 265(1) of the Regulation in circumstances that made it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.[8] On 8 April 2019, Improvement Notice 1035330 was issued, stating that the Inspector reasonably believed that the applicant had contravened reg. 269(3) of the Regulation in circumstances that made it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.[9] As noted above, the Tribunal at first instance confirmed the decisions to issue those improvement notices.
  3. [6]
    The grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows:
    1. (a)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, the Tribunal Member erred in fact in finding that the DEE, which gave rise to the duty to notify under the Regulation, was the faulty installation of the light fitting, in circumstances where the Notice referred to the occurrence of the electric shock as the DEE.[10]
    2. (b)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, the Tribunal Member erred in law in finding, in the alternative, that if the DEE was the electric shock arising from the changing of the light bulbs it was not excluded from being ‘electrical work’, and hence a DEE, under reg 18(2)(c) of the Regulation.[11]
    3. (c)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, and not the occurrence of the electric shock arising from the changing of the light bulb as described in the Improvement Notice, then the Improvement Notice was invalid as not identifying the DEE as required by s 146A of the Act.
    4. (d)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, there was no evidence that the applicant was ‘aware’ of the DEE, so as to invoke the duty to notify, as required by reg 265(1) of the Regulation.
    5. (e)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, the DEE was not an ‘event arising out of the conduct of the business’ under reg 265(1) of the Regulation, but rather arose out of the conduct of another person’s business.
    6. (f)
      In relation to Improvement Notice 1035330, if any of the grounds 1 to 5 of the appeal are successful it follows that Improvement Notice 1035330 is invalid because it rests on the same errors.
  4. [7]
    Grounds 1 and 6, the latter to the extent that it relies upon ground 1, raise errors of fact, while the remaining grounds assert errors of law, involving submissions going to the proper interpretation of the legislation, the validity of the Improvement Notices and, in relation to ground 4, a submission that there was no evidence to support the finding.
  5. [8]
    To the extent that the appeal raises a question of fact, leave to appeal is required.[12] Where leave is given, the appeal is decided by way of rehearing.[13] The Appeal Tribunal in Harrison and Anor v Meehan set out the criteria for determining whether leave should be granted (citations omitted):[14]

The relevant principles to be applied in determining whether to grant leave to appeal are well established: Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision; Is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief; Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by some error; Is there a question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the appellate court or tribunal, would be to the public advantage.

Ground 1

  1. [9]
    Ground 1 of the appeal, which relates to Improvement Notice 1035329, is that the Tribunal Member erred in fact in finding that the DEE, which gave rise to the duty to notify under the Regulation, was the faulty installation of the light fitting, in circumstances where the Notice referred to the occurrence of the electric shock as the DEE.
  2. [10]
    By s 12 of the Act, a ‘dangerous electrical event’ includes:
  1. (e)
    the performance of electrical work by a person if, as a result of the performance of the work, a person or property is not electrically safe;

Examples for paragraph (e)—

• the connection of electrical equipment to a source of supply involving incorrect polarity or other incorrect connection

• the performance of electrical work as a result of which an exposed wire is left in circumstances in which it can be energised by the operation of a switch or circuit breaker or the insertion of a fuse

  1. [11]
    The applicant submits that the Notice clearly indicates that the Inspector considered the DEE to be the electric shock.[15]
  2. [12]
    Improvement Notice 1035329,[16] includes the following:

I, (Inspector) Adrian Beijleri reasonably believe on 04-April-19 at 09:15 that you have contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated of the:

Electrical Safety Regulation, 2013 – section(s) 265(1).

  1. [13]
    Then, under the heading ‘Brief description of how the provision is or has been contravened’, it is stated:

The person failed to notify a dangerous electrical event arising out of the conduct of the persons business had occurred. This is evidenced at the location. The person did not notify the regulator after becoming aware that a worker employed by the person received an electric shock while conducting a person’s business.

  1. [14]
    In his reasons, the Tribunal Member stated:[17]

[42]Firstly, it is abundantly clear from the Inspector’s Statement that he had formed the view that it was the faulty installation of the light fitting that was the DEE he relied on to form the view that there was a DEE and what that DEE was. I am of the same view that the faulty installation of the light fitting which came to the attention of Star as a result of Mr Nankervis receiving an electric shock when changing a lightbulb in the light fitting was the DEE. …

[43]The installation of the light fitting by Aastarr in Star’s business premises was electrical work which gave rise to a circumstance where a person was not electrically safe. Mr Nankervis received an electric shock when changing a light bulb in the light fitting.

[44]Star insists that the work which gave rise to the DEE was the changing of a light bulb by Mr Nankervis which Star says was not electrical work and therefore cannot give rise to a DEE under section 12(e) of the ES Act.

[45]I am satisfied that the changing of the light bulb and consequent electric shock to Mr Nankervis is not the DEE which gave rise to the Improvement Notice issued by the Inspector.

  1. [15]
    The incident that should have triggered the duty to notify is indicated in the Improvement Notice, it being at least implicit that there was an underlying DEE in terms of s 12 of the Act, without which the changing of a light bulb would not have given rise to electric shock. As noted by the Tribunal Member, in relation to the changing of the light bulb:[18]

It was clearly not able to be performed safely because of exposed energised wiring in the fitting that a person changing a light bulb in the particular light fitting risked coming into contact with, and did come into contact with, thereby receiving an electric shock.

  1. [16]
    The reference in that passage to work not being able to be performed safely is taken from the definition of ‘electrical work’,[19]which, in turn, is a component of the definition of a ‘dangerous electrical event’.[20]
  2. [17]
    From the statement of the Inspector dated 10 September 2019 and filed in the Tribunal, it is evident that he considered that a faulty installation was the cause of the electric shock.[21] Also, in giving evidence at the Tribunal hearing he stated:[22]

So the fact that it was mentioned during the meeting that the Star had called an electrician to make safe, and the fact that the worker stated that he had received a shock. That formed my belief that the installation was not safe.

  1. [18]
    Also, the Tribunal Member stated:[23]

[4]An electrician engaged by Star later confirmed the presence of live exposed wires within the subject light fitting with an electrical potential of 239 volts. Temporary control measures were fitted to remove the risk of further electric shock.

  1. [19]
    The Tribunal Member further stated:[24]

[47]Clearly in this particular instance, the task of replacing the light bulb was not performed safely.

[48]It was clearly not able to be performed safely because of exposed energised wiring in the fitting that a person changing a light bulb in the particular light fitting risked coming into contact with, and did come into contact with, thereby receiving an electric shock.

  1. [20]
    It was reasonably open to the Tribunal Member to find on the evidence that the faulty installation of the light fitting was the relevant DEE. Leave to appeal on this ground is refused. There is no reasonably arguable case of error and nor is there a reasonable prospect that the applicant will obtain substantive relief on this ground.

Ground 2

  1. [21]
    Ground 2 of the appeal, relating to Improvement Notice 1035329, is that the Tribunal Member erred in law in finding, in the alternative, that if the DEE was the electric shock arising from the changing of the light bulbs it was not excluded from being ‘electrical work’, and hence a DEE, by reg 18(2)(c) of the Regulation.
  2. [22]
    In relation to this issue, the Tribunal Member stated:[25]

[45]I am satisfied that the changing of the light bulb and consequent electric shock to Mr Nankervis is not the DEE which gave rise to the Improvement Notice issued by the Inspector.

[46]Further, even if it were, I am not satisfied that the act of changing lightbulbs, in the particular circumstances of this case, falls within the exclusion from the definition of electrical work in section 18(2)(c) of the ES Regulation.

18Meaning of electrical work

  1. (2)
    Electrical work does not include the following—
  1. (c)
     replacing electrical equipment or a component of electrical equipment if that task can be safely performed by a person who does not have expertise in carrying out electrical work;

Examples for paragraph (c)—

• replacing a fuse

• replacing a light bulb in a light fitting

[47]Clearly in this particular instance, the task of replacing the light bulb was not performed safely.

[48]It was clearly not able to be performed safely because of exposed energised wiring in the fitting that a person changing a light bulb in the particular light fitting risked coming into contact with, and did come into contact with, thereby receiving an electric shock.

[49]I find that notwithstanding the exclusion in section 18(2)(c) of the ESR, the work of replacing a lightbulb in an energised light fitting with exposed energised wires that a person changing the light bulbs risked coming into contact with, thereby risking an electric shock to that person, is electrical work which is not excluded by section 18(2)(c) of the ES Act.

  1. [23]
    The decision of the Tribunal at first instance was that the faulty installation of the light fitting was the relevant DEE. The submission at ground 1 of the appeal is that the Tribunal Member erred in fact in making that finding. Leave to appeal on that ground has been refused. Accordingly, any error arising from the alternative view discussed by the Tribunal Member does not affect the ultimate outcome of the appeal.
  2. [24]
    In any event, as is noted above, the alternative conclusion drawn by the Tribunal Member was that the changing of the light bulb ‘in the particular circumstances of this case’ falls within the exclusion from the definition of electrical work. Given the presence of the exposed energised wiring, the task could not, in terms of s 18(2)(c) of the Act, ‘be safely performed by a person who does not have expertise in carrying out electrical work’.
  3. [25]
    The applicant submits that, by s 18(2)(c) of the Act, the question is whether the task ‘can be safely performed’, not whether it ‘is’ performed safely and that the provision contemplates ‘a forward-looking analysis’.[26] In other words, the question is whether a light bulb can, as a general proposition or on the known facts, be performed safely.
  4. [26]
    It is evident that the example of replacing a light bulb was not intended to come within the exclusion in all cases. Otherwise it would not be ‘electrical work’ even where it was obvious to the lay person that the light bulb was adversely impacted by some electrical fault, such that it could not be safely changed by a person who did not have expertise in carrying out electrical work.
  5. [27]
    The question then is whether the changing of a light bulb comes within the exception where, as in the present case, it was not evident to the employee that there was a risk, but where there was an underlying fault that caused an electric shock. In other words, where it transpired that the task could not ‘be safely performed by a person who does not have expertise in carrying out electrical work’.
  6. [28]
    Given the purpose of the Act, in my view it does not come within the s 18(2)(c) exception in those circumstances. Section 4 of the Act outlines the purpose of preventing injury caused by electricity, while s 5 sets out how that purpose is to be achieved, including, at s 5(a), by ‘imposing duties on persons who may affect the electrical safety of others by their acts or omissions’. In that context, it is evident that the intention was to ensure that notification is given to the Regulator where there is a relevant risk of injury or where a relevant issue of electrical safety arises, whether or not it was anticipated.
  7. [29]
    Ground 2 of the appeal is rejected.

Ground 3

  1. [30]
    Ground 3 of the appeal, which also relates to Improvement Notice 1035329, is that if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, and not the occurrence of the electric shock arising from the changing of the light bulb as described in the Improvement Notice, then the Improvement Notice was invalid as not identifying the DEE as required by s 146A of the Act.
  2. [31]
    Under the heading ‘Contents of improvement notice’, s 146A(1) of the Act provides:

An improvement notice must state—

  1. (a)
    that the inspector believes the person—
  1. (i)
    is contravening a provision of this Act; or
  1. (ii)
    has contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated; and
  1. (b)
    the provision the inspector believes is being, or has been, contravened; and
  1. (c)
    briefly, how the provision is being, or has been, contravened; and
  1. (d)
    the day by which the person is required to remedy the contravention or likely contravention. (emphasis added)
  1. [32]
    Here, the relevant provision is the failure to notify after becoming aware of a serious electrical incident or DEE, pursuant to reg 265 of the Regulation. While s 146A does not expressly require a delineation of the DEE, the notice should be such that it reasonably enables the recipient to understand the relevant alleged contravention and what is properly required of him or her, in terms of s 146 of the Act.
  2. [33]
    As is noted at [12] above in relation to Improvement Notice 1035329, under the heading ‘Brief description of how the provision is or has been contravened’, it is stated:

The person failed to notify a dangerous electrical event arising out of the conduct of the persons business had occurred. This is evidenced at the location. The person did not notify the regulator after becoming aware that a worker employed by the person received an electric shock while conducting a person’s business.

  1. [34]
    In part, the sentence ‘[t]he person did not notify the regulator after becoming aware that a worker employed by the person received an electric shock while conducting a person’s business’ specifies the time at which the duty to notify arose. The requirement in s 146A is to ‘briefly’ state how the provision has been contravened, rather than requiring a full explanation that would withstand the sort of legal scrutiny advocated by the applicant. The Notice should also be looked at in the context of the relevant circumstances. The employee of the applicant reported receiving an electric shock on 9 March 2019. It was the electrician engaged by the applicant who confirmed the presence of live exposed wires within the light fitting and who fitted temporary control measures.[27] On 12 March 2019, the applicant’s electrical contractor disconnected that and other light fittings and they were sent back to the supplier.[28]
  2. [35]
    The Improvement Notice, which was issued on 4 April 2019, after that intervention by the applicant, states that there was a failure to notify of a DEE arising out of the conduct of the business and that ‘This is evidenced at the location’. At the time of the issue of the notice on 4 April 2019, the light fittings had been removed. In his statement filed in the Tribunal, the Inspector, Mr Bejleri, stated:[29]

[27]  According to the information provided to myself by representatives of (the applicant), I was aware that the light fitting was installed by a person, namely, Astarr Pty Ltd, so in that case, a person had performed electrical work to install the electrical equipment subject to this RA. ….

[29] By referring to section 12(e) of the Electrical Safety Act 2002, I determined that the event meets the definition of  a DEE under the Electrical Safety Act 2002.

  1. [36]
    The nature of the DEE was evident and it was a matter in relation to which the applicant could not have held any reasonable doubt. An Improvement Notice should not be read with an eye to finding technical shortcomings that might frustrate the legislative objective of personal safety.
  2. [37]
    This ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 4

  1. [38]
    Ground 4 of the appeal, also relating to Improvement Notice 1035329, is that if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, there was no evidence that the applicant was ‘aware’ of the DEE, so as to invoke the duty to notify, as required by reg 265(1) of the Regulation.
  2. [39]
    The applicant submits that the evidence does not clearly establish ‘how, when or if’ the applicant became aware of the DEE.[30] However, after the incident of the electric shock, the applicant was aware of the faulty wires in the light fitting and, further, arranged for an electrician to check the fitting.[31] Aastar, a contractor hired by the applicant, subsequently disconnected that and other light fittings and returned them to the supplier.[32]
  3. [40]
    The Tribunal Member found that the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting,[33] and it has not been submitted that that could not constitute a DEE.[34] As discussed in relation to ground 3 of the appeal, it is evident that the applicant had sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances to warrant notification by the applicant in terms of reg. 265 of the Regulation.
  4. [41]
    In the alternative, it is submitted by the applicant that if awareness were established, the evidence did not indicate the cause of the electric shock; whether, for example, it was because of faulty work by Astarr or because of fault on the part of the manufacturer of the fitting or light bulb.[35] In relation to the latter, it is said that it would not have arisen from the electrical work of Astarr, while in relation to the former there might have been an obligation of Astarr to report the matter, but not the applicant.[36] However, there is nothing in the Act or Regulation requiring an identification of the cause of the DEE. Indeed, that may be impossible to discern where, in breach of regulation 269 and as alleged in the present case, a person removes the electrical equipment before an inspector arrives at the site.
  5. [42]
    Also, the submission of the applicant in relation to who was at fault is not to the point. There is nothing in the Regulation to suggest that the reporting obligation is confined to the person who might be responsible for the DEE. A person who conducts a business or enterprise has a duty to notify where the DEE arises out of the conduct of the business or undertaking. The interpretation advocated by the applicant would mean that many relevant events could go unreported, in circumstances where the installer or manufacturer is not aware of the happening of the event. The applicant accepted that the object of reg. 265 is to bring DEE’s and serious electrical incidents to the attention of the Regulator.[37]
  6. [43]
    This ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 5

  1. [44]
    Ground 5 of the appeal, again relating to Improvement Notice 1035329, is that if the DEE was the faulty installation of the light fitting, the DEE was not an ‘event arising out of the conduct of the business’ of the applicant under reg 265(1) of the Regulation, but rather arose out of the conduct of another person’s business; namely, Aastar.
  2. [45]
    That submission seems to assume that the duty to notify rests on one entity only. That issue is discussed at [39], above. There is nothing in the Act or Regulation warranting such a conclusion. To the contrary, s 4 of the Act outlines the purpose of preventing injury caused by electricity, while s 5 sets out how that purpose is to be achieved, including, at s 5(a), ‘imposing duties on persons who may affect the electrical safety of others by their acts or omissions’. Regulation 265 casts a duty on persons conducting a business, rather than on persons in a domestic setting, and only where the DEE or dangerous electrical event arises out of the conduct of the business and is not extraneous to it. Given the purpose of the Act, the term ‘arising out of’ the conduct of the business’ should not be given a narrow meaning.[38] Also, as outlined above, again with reference to reg. 265(1), the applicant was aware of the relevant incident or event.
  3. [46]
    It would be inconsistent with the scheme and purposes of the Act to view reg. 265 as not imposing a duty on the person conducting the business where the DEE occurred (assuming that it was not extraneous to the conduct of that business), given that in some cases the entity that carried out the installation, or the manufacturer of the relevant item, might not be aware of the incident or event.
  4. [47]
    This ground of appeal also is rejected.

Ground 6

  1. [48]
    Ground 6 of the appeal concerns Improvement Notice 1035330.[39] In relation to this ground, it is submitted that if grounds 1 to 5 of the appeal (concerning Improvement Notice 1035329) are successful, then the appeal should also be successful in relation to Improvement Notice 1035330, because it rests on the same errors. Given that leave to appeal in relation to ground 1 of the appeal has been refused and grounds 2 to 5 of the appeal have been rejected, it follows that the same outcome should apply to ground 6 of the appeal.
  2. [49]
    Regulation 269(1) provides that the regulation ‘applies if a serious electrical incident or dangerous electrical event happens at a place’. Regulation 269(3) then provides:

A person must not move or otherwise interfere with any electrical equipment, or part of any electrical equipment, involved in the happening of the incident or event.

  1. [50]
    Improvement Notice 1035330 includes the following:

The person failed to preserve the event site as required by section 269 of the Electrical Safety regulation 2013. This is evidenced at the location. The person failed to ensure a light fitting that was involved in the happening of the event was not moved from the event site.

  1. [51]
    The notice indicates the equipment that should not have been moved. The related submissions in relation to grounds 1 to 5 of the appeal have been discussed above. To the extent that ground 6 relates to ground 1 of the appeal, and rests on alleged factual errors, leave to appeal is refused. Otherwise, the sixth ground of appeal is rejected.

Conclusions

  1. [52]
    The following orders are made:
  1. In relation to ground 1 of the appeal, and the related part of ground 6, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
  3. The parties must file in the Tribunal, and serve a copy on the other party, any written submissions in relation to costs of the application for leave to appeal or appeal within 28 days of the delivery of these orders.\

Footnotes

[1]  The Act, s 146. The reference to contravening a provision of ‘the Act’ includes a contravention of a statutory instrument made under the law: see Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 7.

[2]  As to the meaning of ‘dangerous electrical event’, see the Act, s 12 and [10], below.

[3] The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [2]-[3].

[4]   Ibid, [4]-[6].

[5]  Ibid, [7].

[6]   Ibid, [11]-[14].

[7]  Ibid, [14].

[8]  Ibid, [15]-[17].

[9]  Ibid, [18]-[22]. A further Improvement Notice 1035331, issued on 8 April 2022, was subsequently withdrawn and is not relevant to this appeal.

[10]   See The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [42]-[43], [45].

[11]  By s 12(e) of the Act, a ‘dangerous electrical event’ includes the performance of ‘electrical work’ by a person. The term ‘electrical work’ is defined in s 18 of the Act. See, [10] and [19], below.

[12] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 142(3)(b). The respondent did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal: Outline of Argument for the respondent, [9]-[12].

[13]   QCAT Act, s 147(2).

[14]   [2016] QCATA 197, [8]; Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women v PJC and the Public Guardian [2019] QCATA 109, [14].

[15]  Applicant’s outline of submissions, [11]-[12].

[16]  See Appeal Book, 734.

[17]The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [42]-[45].

[18]  Ibid, [48].

[19]  See s 18 of the Act and [19], above.

[20]  See s 12 of the Act and [10], above.

[21]  Appeal Book, 725. See also The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [42].

[22]   Tribunal hearing transcript, 22 November 2019, 1-16 L 39-42.

[23]The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [4].

[24]   Ibid, [47]-[48].

[25]   Ibid, [45]-[49].

[26]   Applicant’s outline of submissions in reply, [13]-[14].

[27]The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [4].

[28]  Ibid, [5].

[29]  Appeal Book , 725.

[30]   Applicant’s outline of submissions, [42].

[31]  See Transcript 21 October 2021, 1-4 L 3-12; 1-17 L 3 to 1-18 L 8.

[32]The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act, unreported 29 June 2020 (GAR203-19), [4]-[5].

[33]  Ibid, [42].

[34]  See Transcript 21 October 2021, 1-13 L 38 to 1-14 L 42.

[35]  Applicant’s outline of submissions, [37]-[43].

[36]  Ibid, [43]-[47].

[37]   Transcript 21 October 2021, 1-7 L 25-27.

[38]  For discussion of the term ‘arising out of’ and allied terms, see Nettleton v Vero Insurance Limited & Anor [2008] VSC 554, [9]-[14].

[39]  See Appeal Book, 738.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act

  • Shortened Case Name:

    The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCATA 127

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Aughterson

  • Date:

    15 Aug 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women v PJC [2019] QCATA 109
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCATA 109
Cite 2 - [2019] QCATA 109
Harrison and Anor v Meehan [2016] QCATA 197
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCATA 197
Cite 2 - [2016] QCATA 197
Nettleton v Vero Insurance Limited & Anor [2008] VSC 554
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] VSC 554
Cite 2 - [2008] VSC 554

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.