Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QDC
  3. 2017
  4. Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd - [2017] QDC 56

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

Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd[2017] QDC 56

Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd[2017] QDC 56

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 56

PARTIES:

IAN WILLIAMSON
(appellant)

v 

VH & MG IMPORTS PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2607/16

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2016

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

  1. Appeal granted;
  2. Substitute fine of $125,000 for the fine imposed of $90,000 in the Magistrates Court; and
  3. Otherwise affirm sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court on 16 June, 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent was found to have breached s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) for failing to comply with a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) – where the respondent was fined ninety thousand dollars – where no conviction was recorded – where employee was exposed to an unacceptable risk of death or serious injury – where the risk of injury was avoidable – whether the learned acting magistrate fell into error – whether the fine was manifestly inadequate – whether a conviction should be recorded

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Schedule 1

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 222, 225

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 5, 9, 12, 15

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), ss 3, 19, 32

CASES:

Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58

Boland v Big Mars Pty Ltd [2016] SAIRC 11

Hay v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 358

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Kim v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 44

Safe Work New South Wales v Austral Hydroponics Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 295 

SafeWork (NSW) v JSN Hanna Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 117

SafeWork (NSW) v Romanous Contractors [2016] NSWDC 48 

Safe Work New South Wales v Waycon Bulk Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 254

Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327

R v Briese; ex parte Attorney-General [1998] 1 Qd R 487

R v Karlsson [2015] QCA 158

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39

R v Samad [2012] QCA 63

Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151

WorkCover Authority of NSW v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 284

COUNSEL:

M R Byrne, QC with P Matthews for the appellant
R Devlin QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Division of Work' place Health and Safety for the appellant
K&L Gates solicitors for the respondent

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The respondent company VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd was sentenced on 16  June 2016 to a fine of $90,000 with no conviction recorded for a breach of s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) for failing to comply with a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act which exposed persons to a risk of death or serious injury.

Grounds for appeal

  1. [2]
    The appellant (a representative of Workplace Health and Safety Queensland) appeals on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, the particulars of which are as follow:-
  1. (a)
    no or insufficient weight was given to general deterrence;
  1. (b)
    too much weight was given to post offence measures;
  1. (c)
    no or insufficient weight was given to the failure to take even basic risk assessments or to seek expert advice when engaging in a novel area;
  1. (d)
    the sentence is well out of line with sentences imposed for similar offences under the national Work, Health and Safety laws throughout Australia.
  1. [3]
    The magistrate erred in not recording a conviction.

Retention of exhibits on Magistrates Court file

  1. [4]
    The sentence before the learned acting magistrate proceeded with an agreed statement of facts.[1]Unfortunately, none of the 18 exhibits placed before the learned acting magistrate were marked (and retained) as exhibits on the Magistrates Court file. It was consequently necessary for the parties to the appeal to reconstruct what had been placed before the learned acting magistrate in order to enable this court to properly consider the appeal. It is imperative that magistrates admit, mark and retain all exhibits presented during the course of trials and/sentences so that appeals and re-openings (if they occur) can proceed with the relevant court being confident it has all the documentation placed before the original sentencing magistrate.[2]

Facts

  1. [5]
    This summary of the facts draws on the agreed statement of facts.[3]The defendant company VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd is a registered corporation[4]trading under the name of “Market Direct Campers”. At the relevant time, the defendant manufactured and assembled camper trailers, which it imported in bulk from China and then manufactured and assembled the various components to those trailers to make them into camper trailers for sale to members of the public. The defendant operated from premises at unit 4, 854 Boundary Road, Coopers Plains and was described as a “small to medium business enterprise”.
  1. [6]
    The defendant employed various workers including Troy Hooper, Damien Powell and Robert Burnham. At the time of the incident (23 October 2012) Troy Hooper was employed as a labourer, and had worked as a permanent full-time employee for the defendant for approximately six months. Troy Hooper was inducted in the defendant’s work place and systems of work on or about 22 June 2012.
  1. [7]
    The defendant company wished to develop a prototype boat rack to be displayed at a camping show, and employed Robert Burnham to assist in building the prototype, based on his employment history and representations he made to the defendant about his skill and experience, designing and constructing similar types of folding boat racks, including five years employment as a welder with a company that manufactured a similar item. Mr Burnham stated that he was concerned from his discussions with the defendant’s representative that they may have believed he had greater skills than he had and informed the Safety Manager, Richard Molier and the General Manager, Peter Black that he was not a qualified welder and that although he had in his previous employment been involved in designing certain things, he had never designed anything from scratch. Robert Burnham commenced his employment with the defendant on 22 October 2012 and was not inducted into the defendant’s work place or its systems of work, but was immediately tasked with fabricating the boat rack.
  1. [8]
    Prior to the incident Damien Powell (the workshop foreman) and Robert Burnham were tasked with developing a prototype folding boat frame to attach to the company’s standard 7 x 4 foot camper trailer. Damien Powell stated that it was his idea that the defendant company build and incorporate a boat rack on its camper trailer and he discussed this with the Managing Director, Mr Hindley approximately two weeks prior to the incident. Damien Powell stated that company management were aware that he had commenced looking at different options to manufacture a boat rack, which would allow a boat to be transported while positioned on top of the trailer. The frame was designed to pivot 180 degrees on the left hand side of the trailer (viewed from the rear) using gas struts, to facilitate the loading and unloading the boat and to permit the erection of the camper tent located on the trailer, which folded out.
  1. [9]
    On Monday, 22 October 2012, Robert Burnham, utilising a photograph taken from the internet, preliminary sketches and after discussions with Damien Powell, welded a prototype boat frame together using 40 mm2 hollow section, 2.5 mm thick rolled steel tube.
  1. [10]
    On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 the boat frame was placed on a trailer and Damien Powell and Robert Burnham began attaching the gas struts to operate the boat frame.
  1. [11]
    There were no engineering plans, drawings or calculations completed by any competent person in respect of:
  1. (a)
    the design of the boat frame; or
  1. (b)
    the correct position for the struts attachment.
  1. [12]
    Damien Powell and Robert Burnham opened and closed the rack to determine where to position the inner strut on the frame, and while doing this, the welding on the boat frame cracked. Two inner struts were attached on the boat frame and to the back and to the front and back of the left hand side of the trailer (viewed from the rear). The boat frame was re-welded and braced.
  1. [13]
    An aluminium boat weighing 85 kilos was brought into the workshop, and Damien Powell and Robert Burnham attached the boat to the frame and began opening and closing the frame.
  1. [14]
    At approximately 10.00 am Damien Powell contacted Casper Wiegmans (franchisee from ‘Gas Strut Recharge’) and requested he attend the workplace to provide advice regarding the placement and mounting of the struts on the folding boat rack. Casper Wiegmans had supplied gas struts to the defendant company for use on their camper trailers since 2011, and the struts supplied by Casper Wiegmans were used by the defendant company to replace the Chinese manufactured struts provided with the imported camper trailers, which were installed on the trailers to support the bed and mattress. The struts supplied by Casper Wiegmans had a 14 mm shaft and a 28 mm body and are rated to 2200 PSI. The Chinese manufactured struts had a 10 mm shaft and a 22 mm body and were also rated to 2200 PSI. Damien Powell and Robert Burnham were using the Chinese manufactured struts.
  1. [15]
    Casper Weigmans is a qualified boiler maker and had owned and operated a gas strut re-gassing and supply business for 15 years. In that time he had gained extensive experience in gas struts, their various uses and had knowledge with regard to strut placement and a variety of applications. He also had knowledge that a gas strut should not be hit with a hammer or like instrument or levered, as this may cause damage to the strut and impact on its safe operation. He was also aware that welding should not take place in the close vicinity of a gas strut.
  1. [16]
    Casper Wiegmans arrived at the workplace at approximately 12.00 pm and Damien Powell told him that they had trouble getting the boat over the top of centre. Casper Wiegmans told Damien Powell to fit a second pair of struts on the outside of the frame facing the opposite direction, and gave some advice on how to measure the arc that the strut needed to run in without closing too early or too late.
  1. [17]
    After Casper Wiegmans left, Damien Powell and Robert Burnham welded three bolts at different heights on the trailer and frame, intending to use them to determine the best position of the strut placement. Once the correct position had been determined, the strut was attached to the appropriate bolt and the remaining bolts were removed. Damien Powell and Robert Burnham fitted the front outer strut; this was the third strut to be attached. Robert Burnham went home for the day at 4.00 pm. After the final strut was attached, Damien Powell welded the bracing bracket between the strut and the frame.
  1. [18]
    Damien Powell instructed Troy Hooper, Shaun Widderick and another worker to assist with testing out the boat rack before putting the boat on it. They folded the rack over and back five or six times. Troy Hooper, Shaun Widderick and two other workers then lifted the boat onto the rack, the boat was strapped down and the rack was folded over and back another five or six times.
  1. [19]
    Around 7.00 pm, Damien Powell determined that the frame was working satisfactorily and intended to finish for the day. Certain works were required to be finished with regard to the frame and to facilitate this, the boat was removed from the rack. Damien Powell instructed Troy Hooper, Shaun Widderick and another worker to assist with the removal of the gas struts. Troy Hooper, Shaun Widderick and another worker were instructed to hold the frame at a particular angle so that when the struts were in a fully extended position, Damien Powell could remove the struts easily. The two (upper and lower) struts at the rear of the trailer were removed.
  1. [20]
    At approximately 7.05 pm, Damien Powell was using a hammer to tap the strut to loosen it and the claw of the hammer to lever the lower strut on the front of the trailer over the thread of the bolt welded to the frame. While Damien Powell was tapping the strut with the hammer, he heard an explosion or bang and saw Troy Hooper falling backwards. Damien Powell attempted to catch Troy Hooper’s head to prevent him from hitting in the concrete.
  1. [21]
    The piston components of the strut on the lower front end of the trailer had separated from the rod, and the cylinder struck Troy Hooper above his right eye, penetrating his skull. The rod remained attached to the trailer.
  1. [22]
    Emergency services were called and attended. Troy Hooper was transported to the Princess Alexander Hospital with the cylinder embedded in his skull. The surgical team attending Troy Hooper determined, as a result of this injury, that he was brain dead and life support was turned off later that evening. Troy Hooper was pronounced deceased at 11.16 pm. The autopsy report indicates that the cause of death as a penetrating head injury.
  1. [23]
    Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) were advised of the incident and attended the work place on the evening of the incident along with Queensland Police Service personnel. An investigation commenced.
  1. [24]
    Damien Powell was identified as the senior employee involved in a “hands on” role with the boat rack manufacturing task. He was then in the position of workshop foreman and his role included “overseeing the work on the floor, keeping an eye on what the other guys are doing, including assisting with training of staff.” Other senior management personnel, including the General Manager, Peter Black, were aware that the manufacturing activity was being planned and undertaken.
  1. [25]
    The investigation revealed that no risk assessment had been conducted on the work activity of designing, fabricating and attaching the boat rack to the camper trailer.
  1. [26]
    It is imperative that the correct gas strut mounting points be accurately and correctly ascertained to ensure that the struts, when installed, would not be placed into a position where they could be overextended. An overextended strut may fail and could explosively detach and separate.
  1. [27]
    Several alternate mounting points for fixing the struts on the camper trailer and boat rack frame were used by Damien Powell and Robert Burnham. The lack of engineering drawings and evidence of several mounting points suggests that the struts were positioned and tested in a “trial and error” fashion. Damien Powell stated that the company did not have staff with knowledge of the positioning of the gas struts on any prototype manufactured folding boat frame.
  1. [28]
    Inspection of the gas strut involved in the incident showed that the piston had separated from the rod and that the rod appeared to be bent in the vicinity of the eyelet.
  1. [29]
    The parties obtained three expert reports, which were submitted to the sentencing court.[5]
  1. [30]
    It was accepted between the parties:
  1. (a)
    The strut involved in the incident that fatally insured Troy Hooper explosively detached;
  1. (b)
    That it is more likely that the struts attached to the boat rack were placed into a circumstance that they would be, and were, overextended;
  1. (c)
    The gas strut involved in the incident that explosively detached was of a poor manufactured quality, and had a particularly poor bond between the rod and the piston of that strut.
  1. [31]
    Documents were provided during the course of the investigation to WHSQ which indicated that all workers were inducted on 22 June 2012.
  1. [32]
    There were no written work procedures in place for the workers with regard to the safe installation of gas struts at the work place. The installation of gas struts was learnt from other workers, and Damien Powell indicated that he was unaware that the gas strut had a top and a bottom and should be installed in an orientation so that the piston rod received lubrication when it was in operation. This had not been done with regard to at least one of the struts installed on the prototype boat rack fabrication.
  1. [33]
    Damien Powell stated in his statement that “prior to the build (of the boat rack) no weights or load points had been calculated”. He stated that he was unaware whether anyone in the defendant company could do those calculations.
  1. [34]
    Damien Powell stated further that at the time of the incident:

“I was trying to remove the strut but it would not come off easily. Because the road is threaded sometimes it is hard to remove. I usually use a hammer to give it a tap or the claw of the hammer to pull it over the thread. I had done that on the two at the rear and that was a pretty common practice to get struts off.”

  1. [35]
    The inspection revealed that gas struts should not be hit or levered off with anything to dislodge them for removal as it can damage the strut. Welding should not occur near a gas strut as this can cause the gas in the strut to expand and may compromise the strut’s integrity.
  1. [36]
    It was asserted that the defendant company did not ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of Troy Hooper, while he was at work in that it failed:

“1. to develop safe work method procedures for workers carrying out the task of manufacturing and fabricating the boat rack prototype for attachment to camper trailers;

  1. to calculate the correct position of the struts to avoid over extension of the struts;
  1. to consult with a competent person or the strut manufacturer to ensure the design application was suitable for the struts;
  1. to provide adequate supervision to workers required to carry out the task of manufacturing and fabricating boat racks for attachment to a camper trailer; and
  1. to undertake any adequate risk assessment for the activity of manufacturing and fabricating boat racks for attachment to camper trailers, including the installation of struts in accordance with the Code of Practice “How to Manage Work, Health and Safety Risks 2011”.
  1. [37]
    It was identified that control measures the defendant company could have implemented were:-
  1. undertake a risk assessment of the process of manufacturing and fabricating boat racks for attachment to camper trailers in accordance with the Code of Practice “How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks 2011”,  including the installation of struts, to ensure the risk, so far as reasonably practicable, from the hazards of using such struts was controlled;
  1. preparing engineering plans for the boat rack, with calculations for the correct positioning of the struts;
  1. preparing and instructing workers in safe work procedures for the use of gas struts;
  1. utilising the services of a competent person to ensure the design application was suitable for the struts;
  1. utilising the services of a competent person to ensure the struts were in good working order; and
  1. to provide adequate supervision to workers required to carry out the task of manufacturing and fabricating boat racks for attachment to a camper trailer.
  1. [38]
    The defendant cooperated with the investigation of the incident and had no previous convictions under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (or its predecessor enactment).

The Law – Appeals

  1. [39]
    This appeal proceeds pursuant to s. 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). As Margaret Wilson AJA stated in Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327:-

“An appeal from a Magistrates Court to the District Court pursuant to s. 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) is a rehearing on the evidence given at trial and any new evidence adduced by leave. In other words, it involves a review of the record of proceedings below, subject to the District Court’s power to admit new evidence. To succeed, an appellant needs to show some legal, factual or discretionary error.”[6]

Magistrates Court proceeding

  1. [40]
    The matter proceeded by way of a complaint and summons dated 4 February 2014[7]which alleged a breach of s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, being a failure to comply with a Health and Safety duty held under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The matter was heard before the learned acting magistrate at Brisbane Magistrates Court on 16 July 2015, proceeding with an agreed statement of facts[8], three expert reports,[9]as well as “a spreadsheet comparing the contents of these reports, as well as a number of other material”[10]. The family of the deceased attended court and provided a victim impact statement[11].
  1. [41]
    It was accepted between the parties that:
  1. (a)
    the strut involved in the incident that fatally injured Troy Hooper explosively detached;
  1. (b)
    that it is more than likely that the manner in which the struts were attached to the boat rack would be, and were, over extended; and
  1. (c)
    the gas strut involved in the incident that explosively detached was of a poor manufactured quality, and had a particularly poor bond between the rod and the piston of that strut.[12]
  1. [42]
    The learned acting magistrate delivered a written decision[13]on 16 June 2016. The learned acting magistrate imposed a fine of $90,000, ordered that no conviction be recorded and ordered that the defendant company pay the complainant’s professional costs of $2,500 and filing fees of $83.70.

The learned acting magistrate’s decision

  1. [43]
    The learned acting magistrate provided a 14 page written decision, [14]and at pages 1-8, set out a detailed (and accurate) overview of the facts, the investigation and the failures of the defendant as well as the necessary remediation.
  1. [44]
    After addressing the factual matrix, the specific failures and remediation, and summarising the submissions of prosecution and defence, the learned magistrate stated the following:-

“Ultimately Mr Hooper has lost his life in circumstances where he was going about his proper work place duties. No blame falls upon him. There is no act at all by him which contributed to his death. He literally was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fault lies only in the workplace whose systems failed in this instance. I repeat what I said above: there is no question that the conduct of the company in the fabrication of the prototype boat rack breached the relevant Act and thus the duty of care to the deceased employee, Mr Hooper in that the absence of adequate drawings and specifications for a new design concept, and the absence of adequate knowledge and training in key personnel of the appropriate operating conditions for the crucial apparatus, the gas strut, and the fatal failure of the strut itself underpin the breach. It is a case though which, but for the catastrophic failure of the strut, may have seen the other flaws rendered harmless.”[15]

  1. [45]
    The learned acting magistrate did accurately identify that the maximum penalty at the time submissions were made to the court and at the time of the offence was $1,500,000 or 15,000 penalty units, and noted that “the maximum penalty is applicable in the worst category of cases in terms of the offending conduct”.[16]
  1. [46]
    The learned acting magistrate identified that the family of Troy Hooper had lost a son, father, partner and brother and that “it no doubt seems the worst category of case for them”[17]. The learned acting magistrate further identified that “the penalty must reflect the level of seriousness of the offence whether it be under old or new legislation. This is no mathematical exercise. As was said in Samad [2012] QCA 63:

‘It does not necessarily follow from the fact of an increase in the maximum penalty that all such offences committed after the amendment came into effect should attract a higher penalty than they previously would have.’

It falls to the court to address the facts of the case at hand having regard to the maximum penalty extant and the seriousness of the offence together with the mitigating factors.”[18]

  1. [47]
    Having concluded that were it not for the catastrophic failure of the strut, the other “flaws” may have been “rendered harmless”[19]the learned magistrate then stated:

“Where a company has displayed a cavalier attitude to the health and safety of its workers (or worse), and has placed its own interests above those of their employees and in doing so has previously incurred the sanction of authorities, it earns a salutary penalty.

This is not a company which is heedless of its employees and their welfare. Its audit shortly prior to this incident caused no issues. It had, and has since, taken steps to ensure enhanced work place health and safety. It is a small business operating on slim margins and offering work to those who might otherwise slip through the workplace gaps. It has been cooperative with authorities and compassionate to the victim’s family and colleagues.

In the circumstances the fine which I impose is $90,000 together with professional costs of $2,500 and filing fees of $83.70. The company has otherwise been a good corporate citizen, and I order that no conviction be recorded.”[20]

Discussion

  1. [48]
    As noted, the learned acting magistrate correctly identified that the maximum penalty at the relevant time was $1.5 million or 15,000 penalty units[21]. However, the prosecution was then (on 16 July 2015) unable to provide guidance on an appropriate penalty range as a result of the decision of Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58, although it did submit that the maximum penalty should address the most serious breaches involving cases (where the defendant has been cavalier, callous or complete disregard as well as cases involving multiple deaths) but submitted that activity in this matter should move to the higher end of any potential breach.[22]The prosecution did, however, tender a range of comparatives which provided a useful overview of penalties imposed in similar cases, and made submission on those cases.[23]Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58 was legislatively over-ruled in Queensland by amendment to s. 15 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.[24]
  1. [49]
    The learned acting magistrate was provided with comparatives including SB Waste Management Pty Ltd (19 December, 2013), Tri Q Inc (19 December, 2013), POAGS Pty Ltd (14 June, 2012) and Marglen Pty Ltd (3 March, 2014).[25]
  1. [50]
    SB Waste Management Pty Ltd, which saw a fine of $55,000, was a matter involving the death of a member of the public at a waste management facility, and bore little similarity to the current matter, other than an avoidable death.
  1. [51]
    Tri Q Inc (fine of $125,000) and POAGS Pty Ltd (fine of $140,000) each revealed serious breaches of work health and safety duties, with no system of work for undertaking hot work (in Tri Q Inc), and an inadequate system to manage the interaction of pedestrian workers and moving plant (in POAGS Pty Ltd). Each of those defendants had no previous work health and safety breaches, had co-operated, exhibited remorse and entered early pleas of guilty.
  1. [52]
    In Marglen Pty Ltd,[26]the outcome was grievous bodily harm, rather than death, but a fine of $120,000 was imposed in circumstances where the defendant failed to adequately develop any system in accordance with the Plant Code of Practice and failed in providing adequate supervision to ensure persons were not placed at risk while in proximity to plant.
  1. [53]
    With respect, the circumstances in each of those comparatives placed before the acting learned magistrate, albeit decisions from fellow magistrates, were of at least similar levels of seriousness in terms of risk and outcomes, although it should be noted that the outcome in Marglen Pty Ltd was an employee suffering grievous bodily harm, rather than death.
  1. [54]
    It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned acting magistrate has failed to articulate, having identified the factual matrix in which the offending occurred, how the penalty ($90,000) was arrived at. In particular, although the learned acting magistrate identified that the company had not displayed a cavalier attitude and that the defendant was “not a company which is heedless of its employees and their welfare”, had not previously been convicted of work, health and safety breaches; had previously been audited without issues; had taken steps to ensure enhanced workplace health and safety; operated on slim margins; offered work to those who might “otherwise slip through the workplace gaps”; and had been cooperative with the authorities and compassionate to the victim’s family and colleagues;[27]there appears to have been no clear acknowledgment in respect of penalty, of the offending behaviour, which the appellant identifies, accurately in my view, as “a complete lack of a safety approach, as required by the legislative scheme, the ruling codes of practice and Australian standards in the designing and constructing of the prototype boat rack by this defendant which has led to a young worker being violently killed whilst carrying out a task he had been directed to undertake”.[28]
  1. [55]
    The expert reports indicate that the cause of failure of the gas strut was a combination of the over-extension of the strut and the poor quality of the strut.[29]It is submitted by the appellant that the learned acting magistrate, in identifying in the written reasons that “it is a case though which, but for the catastrophic failure of the strut, may have seen the other flaws rendered harmless” amounted to a failure by the learned acting magistrate to identify the gravity of the breach, which flowed not just from the poor quality of the strut, but also from multiple over-extensions occurring from a completely inadequate system of work adopted by the defendant’s workers.[30]
  1. [56]
    It is further submitted that the learned acting magistrate has, in the sentencing decision, failed to identify the range of work, health and safety failures which led directly to the death of Troy Hooper. These failures are specifically articulated in the complaint and summons at paragraph 7 under the heading “Failures” in the following terms.[31]VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd did not ensure as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of, inter alia, Troy Ronald Hooper, while he was at work in that it failed to:-

“(i) develop a safe work method for the activity of designing, manufacture, fabricating and assembly of a boat rack to be attached to a camper trailer, which in the process of manufacture and assembly, required gas struts to be fitted in order to facilitate the operation of the boat rack and its load;

  1. (ii)
    develop a work instruction for the correct attachment of gas struts to avoid the struts being damaged, including over-extension;
  1. (iii)
    utilise a competent person to calculate, mathematically and geometrically, the correct attachment points to ensure that the gas struts were not damaged, including over extension, during the operation of the boat rack;
  1. (iv)
    consult with a competent person or the strut manufacturer to ensure the intended design application was suitable for the gas struts;
  1. (v)
    provide adequate supervision to workers directed to carry out the task of designing, manufacture, fabricating and assembly of a boat rack to be attached to a camper trailer, which in the process of manufacturer and assembly, required gas struts to be fitted in order to facilitate the operation of the boat rack and its load;
  1. (vi)
    undertake a risk assessment, in accordance with the Code of Practice ‘How to Manage Work, Health and Safety Risks’ 2011, for the activity of designing, manufacture, fabricating and assembly of a boat rack to be attached to a camper trailer, which in the process of manufacture and assembly, required gas struts to be fitted in order to facilitate the operation of the boat rack and its load to ensure hazards were identified and controls decided on and implemented.”
  1. [57]
    It is submitted that the learned acting magistrate failed to address specific aspects of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s. 9 (Sentencing Guidelines), in that there has been a failure to identify the need to address deterrence[32]; denunciation[33], and a failure to have regard to the maximum and any minimum penalty prescribed for the offence[34]; the nature of the offence and how serious the offence was including any physical, mental or emotional harm done to a victim[35]and further, “the extent to which the offender is to blame for the offence”.[36]
  1. [58]
    It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that although the defendant’s character, financial circumstances, cooperation with authorities and other mitigating factors are important considerations in the determination of penalty, the learned acting magistrate placed insufficient weight on the nature and seriousness of the offence and the harm caused by the defendant’s failures which led to the death of an employee.[37]The appellant submits that the respondent was responsible for bringing the hazard into existence resulting in fatal injuries to a worker who was simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time”, and the significant impact of that worker’s death was articulated in the victim impact statement.[38]
  1. [59]
    The respondent, in contrast, submits that the learned acting magistrate took all of the relevant matters into account, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, and that no apparent error was exposed in the reasoning and the exercise of the sentencing discretion.
  1. [60]
    In particular, the respondent argues that the learned acting magistrate’s observation that Mr Hooper was “in the wrong place at the wrong time” did not display flawed reasoning, but should be seen in the context of the presence of various members of Mr Hooper’s family at the hearing.
  1. [61]
    The respondent submits, correctly, that decisions for other harmonised work health and safety jurisdictions were not put before the learned acting magistrate at first instance.
  1. [62]
    In particular, the respondent argues that, in the context of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing endorsed by the Queensland Court of Appeal,[39]the learned acting magistrate appropriately took into account not only the offending conduct but also the surrounding circumstances, both aggravating and mitigating.

Whether it is appropriate to intervene on the basis that the sentence here is manifestly inadequate

  1. [63]
    The classic articulation of the role of an appellate court is set out in the decision of Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505 in these terms:

Where a defendant is “… sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of a criminal appeal, the sentence ‘… depends upon the exercise of a judicial discretion by the court imposing it. The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court must consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course. It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so. It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court at first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred.” (citations deleted).

  1. [64]
    In Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, the court made it clear that an appellate court may conclude that a trial judge’s exercise of discretion has miscarried not only where there is “a specific error of principle,”[40]but also that

“…there is the residuary category of error which, in the field of sentencing appeals, is usually described as manifest excess or manifest inadequacy. In this second kind of case appellate intervention is not justified simply because the result arrived at below is markedly different from other sentences that have been imposed in other cases. Intervention is warranted only where the difference is such that, in all the circumstances, the appellate court concludes that there must have been some misapplication of principle, even though where and how is not apparent from the statement of reasons.”[41]

  1. [65]
    In my view, the learned acting magistrate failed to properly take into account “the gravity and seriousness” of the respondent company’s breach in the quantum the fine imposed ($90,000). The learned acting magistrate’s reasons do not, in any event, articulate a rationale for the fine imposed, and in my view that fine is manifestly inadequate sentence in the circumstances, especially when compared to the matters of Tri Q Inc, POAGS Pty Ltd and Mangler Pty Ltd.[42]
  1. [66]
    I accept, of course, that the prosecution was, at the time of the original hearing, constrained by the High Court decision in Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58.
  1. [67]
    I consider that the learned acting magistrate fell into error, by failing to impose a sentence that was proportionate to the gravity and seriousness of the breach, which had catastrophic consequences (a loss of life which should not have occurred). The learned acting magistrate also failed to give sufficient weight to the need for general deterrence and denunciation, in the context of the minimum and maximum penalties applicable.[43]The risk of injury was clearly avoidable, had a safe work method been developed, appropriate work instructions developed, professional assistance obtained in respect of attachment points and design, adequate supervision provided to the relevant workers and an appropriate risk assessment undertaken. In particular, the failure of the gas strut was just the final step in a sequence of systemic work health failures, and in my view, the learned acting magistrate placed too much emphasis on that factor, and placed insufficient weight on the aggregation of factors preceding the gas strut failure. I consider, therefore, that the learned acting magistrate has given “insufficient consideration to the nature and seriousness of the offence and the extent to which the defendant’s failures were to blame for the incident occurring.”[44]It follows that the fine imposed should be set aside, and the defendant company re-sentenced by this court.[45]

Harmonised Work Health Safety Legislation and Impact on Penalty

  1. [68]
    The model Work Health Safety Act 2010, introduced on 1 January 2012, provided a harmonised national Work Health Safety Legislative Scheme for Australia. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) represents the adoption by the Queensland parliament of the harmonised laws, which were introduced as part of the Council of Australian Government’s National Reform Agenda to reduce “regulatory burdens and create a seamless national economy.”[46]
  1. [69]
    The Queensland legislation inserted a local penalty unit for the Work Health Safety Act 2011 (Qld) into s 5 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).[47]The Explanatory Note indicates that the purpose of inserting a “local penalty unit” at $100.00 in respect of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 was “to ensure that the penalties in Work Health and Safety Act 2011… can be amended and not get out of step with the nationally agreed quantum into the future.”[48]
  1. [70]
    It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that sentencing in respect of the harmonised work safety laws in Queensland is analogous to the sentencing of federal offences by state courts. The High Court has recently indicated in R v Pham [2015] HCA 39 that a sentencing judge “must have regard to current sentencing practices throughout the Commonwealth.”[49]It is further submitted by the appellant that “consistency in sentences imposed under the harmonised scheme”, which currently applies in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, should permit sentencing courts to “have regard to decisions in harmonised jurisdictions” which will result in “like cases [being] treated in a like manner.”[50]
  1. [71]
    I am guided by s 3(1)(a), (e) and (h) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, which relevantly state:
  1. “(1)
    The main object of this Act is to provide for a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces by:
  1. (a)
    protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety and welfare through the elimination or minimisation of risks arising from work or from specified types of substances or plant, and

…

  1. (e)
    securing compliance with this Act through effective and appropriate compliance and enforcement measures, and

…

  1. (h)
    maintaining and strengthening the national harmonisation of laws relating to work health and safety and to facilitate a consistent national approach to work health and safety in this jurisdiction.”
  1. [72]
    I have no hesitation in accepting the submission that those objects are facilitated by an application of the analogy of sentencing for federal offences in State courts. The view I take is reinforced by Work Health and Safety Act 2011 s 3(2), which provides:
  1. “(2)
    In furthering subsection (1) (a), regard must be had to the principle that workers and other persons should be given the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety and welfare from hazards and risks arising from work or from specified types of substances or plant as is reasonably practicable.”
  1. [73]
    It follows that in exercising the sentencing discretion afresh, this court should look to relevant decisions in harmonised interstate jurisdictions for guidance on the appropriate penalty. It is accepted, of course, that there is no single “correct” sentence in any given matter, but it is fundamental to a fair system of justice, that sentencing be undertaken with as much consistency as possible.[51]
  1. [74]
    The appellant submits the following decisions involving breaches of s 32 in respect of duties held under s 19 by corporate defendants provide appropriate assistance in respect of a penalty which should be imposed in this matter. Those cases are:-
  1. WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151 (fine of $250,000, costs of $22,500).
  1. WorkCover Authority of NSW v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 284 (fine of $412,500 plus costs as agreed or assessed).
  1. Safe Work New South Wales v Waycon Bulk Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 254 (fine of $187,500 and costs as agreed or assessed).
  1. Safe Work New South Wales v Austral Hydroponics Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 295 (fined $150,000).
  1. SafeWork (NSW) v Romanous Contractors [2016] NSWDC 48 (fined $425,000).
  1. Boland v Big Mars Pty Ltd [2016] SAIRC 11 (fined $240,000).
  1. SafeWork (NSW) v JSN Hanna Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 117 (fine of $87,500 upheld on appeal).
  1. [75]
    These decisions have similarities to the appeal before me which include:-
  1. (a)
    all the corporate defendants, other than the defendant Visy Paper, were small companies with small workforces in relatively discrete business undertakings;
  1. (b)
    all, other than the defendant Visy, were first time offenders;
  1. (c)
    all were acknowledged as cooperating with the investigation agency;
  1. (d)
    remorse was noted as being displayed by all defendants;
  1. (e)
    the decisions of Sarjame Storage, Visy Paper, Romanous Contractors and Austral Hydroponics involved a worker being fatally injured (although the prosecution acknowledged in Austral Hydroponics that the victim did not die from injuries sustained in his workplace fall);
  1. (f)
    the decisions of Waycon Bulk, Big Mars and JSN Hanna resulted in workers receiving injuries (in JSN Hanna a relatively minor injury);
  1. (g)
    general deterrence was an element in each penalty imposed;
  1. (h)
    each offence was objectively serious when regard was had to the circumstances of the breach;
  1. (i)
    each hazard was foreseeable and reasonably practicable measures were available to address the risk presented from the hazard;
  1. (j)
    other than the matter of JSN Hanna, all the other defendants had insufficient or non-existent work procedures for the work activity being undertaken;
  1. (k)
    in all but one (Romanous Contractors) an early plea of guilty was accepted as requiring a discount on the plea of guilty otherwise applicable;
  1. (l)
    in all but one case (Romanous Contractors) good corporate citizenship was accepted as being present; and
  1. (m)
    financial information (capacity to pay fine) was taken into account and considered in each case, with the defendants Austral Hydroponics and Romanous Contractors ceasing to trade at the time of the penalty being imposed.
  1. [76]
    In exercising the discretion of this appellate court afresh on appeal, it is my view that a sentence, taking into account both the similarities and distinctions with the comparatives identified above, should be a fine in the order of $250,000, although an appropriate range could extend from $200,000 up to $400,000, depending on the circumstances of the case. The sentence actually imposed in this matter under appeal (a fine of $90,000) is, as I have indicated above, clearly manifestly inadequate.
  1. [77]
    However, in the particular circumstances of the respondent company, the lengthy delays that have occurred in bringing this matter to finalisation, the issues involved with the Barbaro decision and its legislative over-ruling, and given that this is the first appeal to address the issue of the harmonised national work health and safety laws, it is appropriate to substantially ameliorate the penalty that would otherwise be appropriate. Accordingly, I consider the penalty on re-sentence should be a fine of $125,000.

Discretion to order a conviction

  1. [78]
    It is clear that the non-recording of a conviction is appellable in the Court of Appeal.[52]
  1. [79]
    Justices Act 1886 s 222(2)(c) provides:
  1. “(2)
    However, the following exceptions apply—

…

  1. (c)
    if a defendant pleads guilty or admits the truth of a complaint, a person may only appeal under this section on the sole ground that a fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment was excessive or inadequate.”
  1. [80]
    The Acts Interpretation Act 1954 defines “penalty” as including “forfeiture and punishment”.[53]
  1. [81]
    R v Briese; ex parte Attorney-General held that: “…the decision whether to record or not to record a conviction affects the offender, and is party to the sentence.”  The term “sentence” is defined in [Penalties and Sentences Act] s 4 as follows:

“’Sentence’ means any penalty or imprisonment ordered to be paid or served, or any other order made, by a court after an offender is convicted, whether or not a conviction is recorded.”

  1. [82]
    The relevant portion of that definition has not changed since the decision in Briese. It follows that the non-recording of a conviction is appellable pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886.[54]
  1. [83]
    Pursuant to s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, the basis for recording a conviction is as follows:

“12  Court to consider whether or not to record conviction

  1. (1)
    A court may exercise a discretion to record or not record a conviction as provided by this Act.
  1. (2)
    In considering whether or not to record a conviction, a court must have regard to all circumstances of the case, including—
  1. (a)
    the nature of the offence; and
  1. (b)
    the offender's character and age; and
  1. (c)
    the impact that recording a conviction will have on the offender's—

(i)  economic or social wellbeing; or

(ii)  chances of finding employment.

  1. (3)
    The learned magistrate identified that “the company has otherwise been a good corporate citizen” and elected to order that “no conviction be recorded.”[55]

…“

  1. [84]
    The respondent company had no previous work health and safety convictions and, as the acting learned magistrate (properly in my view) identified, had a clear concern for its employees and their welfare; had shortly prior to the incident been audited without issues; had taken steps to ensure enhanced workplace health and safety; had been cooperative with authorities and compassionate to the victim’s family and colleagues and was a small business operating on slim margins and offering work to those who might otherwise slip through the workplace gaps.[56]
  1. [85]
    Although those matters were not specifically articulated as being relevant to the decision whether or not to order a conviction, it is clear that they are matters relevant to “the offender’s character”,[57]and relevant to “the impact that recording a conviction will have on the offenders -  
  1. (i)
    Economic or social wellbeing.”[58]That of course must be balanced against the nature of the offence[59]which in this case was the completely unnecessary exposure of an employee to an unacceptable risk of death or serious injury, with an actual death occurring in circumstances where it was avoidable. With respect, I do not consider that the learned acting magistrate fell into error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion in not recording a conviction in these circumstances. Accordingly, the order that no conviction be recorded remains.

Conclusion

  1. Appeal granted. Set aside the fine of $90,000 and substitute a fine of $125,000. Otherwise affirm sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court on 16 June, 2016.

Costs

  1. [86]
    I will hear the parties on costs.

Footnotes

[1]  Sentence Exhibit 2; Appeal Exhibit 2.

[2]  See also Hay v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 358, para 25.

[3]  Sentence Exhibit 2; Appeal Exhibit 2.

[4]Corporations Act (2001) Cth.

[5] Exhibits 6, 7 and 8.

[6]Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327 per Margaret Wilson AJA, para 26.

[7]  Exhibit 14.

[8]  Exhibit 2.

[9]  Exhibits 6, 7 and 8.

[10]  Exhibit 1 (appellant’s outline of argument), para 13.

[11]  Exhibit 11.

[12]  Exhibit 1 (appellant’s outline of argument), para 15.

[13]  Exhibit 17.

[14]  Exhibit 17.

[15]  Exhibit 17, p. 13.

[16]  Exhibit 17, p. 12.

[17]  Exhibit 17, p. 13.

[18]  Exhibit 17, p. 13.

[19]  Exhibit 17, p. 13.

[20]  Exhibit 17, p. 14.

[21]Work Health Safety Act 2011, s. 32.

[22]  Magistrates Court transcript p. 21.

[23]  Exhibit 15; Tl-22 – l-25.

[24]  Effective 5 May, 2016.

[25]  Exhibit 10.

[26]  Exhibit 10.

[27]  Exhibit 17, p. 14.

[28]  Exhibit 1, pp. 7-8, para 38.

[29]  Exhibit 7 (report of Dr Jeffrey Gates), paras 9.71-9.73; 9.91 and para 9.82; Ex. 8 (report of David Flatman), paras 58-60-61; Ex. 6 (report of Dr Frank Grigg) p. 8, para 1 and p. 7, para 23.

[30]  Exhibit 1, para 5.

[31]  Exhibit 14A.

[32]Penalties and Sentences Act, s. 9(1)(c).

[33]Penalties and Sentences Act, s. 9(1)(d).

[34]Penalties and Sentences Act, s. 9(2)(a).

[35]Penalties and Sentences Act, s. 9(2)(b), (i).

[36]Penalties and Sentences Act, s. 9(2)(c).

[37]  Exhibit 1, p. 9.

[38]  Exhibit 11.

[39]R v Karlsson [2015] QCA 158.

[40]Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, 605 at [58].

[41]Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, 605 at [58] per Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ.

[42]  Exhibit 10.

[43]Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s. 9.

[44]  Appellant’s outline of argument p. 6, para 31.

[45]Justices Act 1886, s. 225.

[46]  Outline, Explanatory Memorandum – Model Work Health and Safety Bill, Safe Work Australia.

[47]Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s. 5(1)(d).

[48]  Outline, Explanatory Memorandum – Explanatory Notes – Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 cl 403, p. 140.

[49]R v Pham [2015] HCA 39 per French CJ, Keane and Nettle JJ para 23.

[50]  Appellant’s outline of argument para 52.

[51]Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520.

[52]R v Briese; ex parte Attorney-General [1998] 1 Qd R 487, per Thomas and White JJ at p. 490.

[53]Acts Interpretation Act 1954, Schedule 1.

[54]  See for example Kim v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 44.

[55]  Exhibit 17 p. 14.

[56]  Exhibit 17 p. 14.

[57]Penalties and Sentences Act s. 12(2)(b).

[58]Penalties and Sentences Act s. 12(2)(c)(i).

[59]Penalties and Sentences Act s .12(2)(a).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2017] QDC 56

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Dearden DCJ

  • Date:

    17 Mar 2017

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
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2014) 253 CLR 58
Cite 2 - (2014) 253 CLR 58
Cite 3 - (2014) 253 CLR 58
Cite 4 - (2014) 253 CLR 58
Boland v Big Mars Pty Ltd [2016] SAIRC 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] SAIRC 11
Cite 2 - [2016] SAIRC 11
Hay v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 358
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QDC 358
Cite 2 - [2016] QDC 358
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Cite 2 - (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kim v Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 44
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QDC 44
Cite 2 - [2016] QDC 44
R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General[1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1998] 1 Qd R 487
Cite 2 - [1998] 1 Qd R 487
R v Karlsson [2015] QCA 158
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCA 158
Cite 2 - [2015] QCA 158
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] HCA 39
Cite 2 - [2015] HCA 39
Cite 3 - [2015] HCA 39
R v Samad [2012] QCA 63
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCA 63
Cite 2 - [2012] QCA 63
Safe Work New South Wales v Austral Hydroponics Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 295
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] NSWDC 295
Cite 2 - [2015] NSWDC 295
Safe Work New South Wales v Waycon Bulk Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 254
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] NSWDC 254
Cite 2 - [2015] NSWDC 254
SafeWork (NSW) v JSN Hanna Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 117
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] NSWDC 117
Cite 2 - [2016] NSWDC 117
SafeWork (NSW) v Romanous Contractors [2016] NSWDC 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] NSWDC 48
Cite 2 - [2016] NSWDC 48
Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCA 327
Cite 2 - [2011] QCA 327
Cite 3 - [2011] QCA 327
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 207 CLR 584
Cite 2 - (2001) 207 CLR 584
Cite 3 - (2001) 207 CLR 584
Cite 4 - (2001) 207 CLR 584
Cite 5 - (2001) 207 CLR 584
WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] NSWDC 151
Cite 2 - [2015] NSWDC 151
WorkCover Authority of NSW v Visy Paper Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 284
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] NSWDC 284
Cite 2 - [2015] NSWDC 284

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Bennett Developments (FNQ) Pty Ltd v Steward [2020] QDC 2354 citations
Ghost Gully Produce Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle [2022] QDC 757 citations
Guilfoyle v Culverthorpe Pty Ltd [2019] QMC 173 citations
Guilfoyle v Huckleberry Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QMC 12 citations
Guilfoyle v Wild Breads Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 582 citations
Reynolds v Criscon Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 2521 citation
Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 312 citations
Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 203 citations
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.