Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 - [2022] QIRC 490

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

Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011[2022] QIRC 490

Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011[2022] QIRC 490

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2022] QIRC 490

PARTIES:

Shape-Cut Pty Ltd

(Applicant)

v

The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WHS/2022/188

PROCEEDING:

Application for stay of operation of decision

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2022

HEARING DATE:

19 December 2022

MEMBER:

O'Connor VP

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDER:

  1. The application in WHS/2022/188 is granted;
  2. Pursuant to s 229C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the internal review decision dated 10 October 2022 is stayed on the condition that the Improvement Notice the subject of the review is also stayed; and
  3. Pursuant to s 229C(2)(b) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the stay of the internal review decision, and the Improvement Notice the subject of the review, will remain in effect until the application for the external review is heard and determined by the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY – APPLICATION FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW – APPLICATION FOR STAY OF OPERATION OF DECISION – where incident involved the use of overhead gantry crane which was controlled remotely by a 'pendant' – where inspector issued improvement notice – whether jurisdiction to order stay pursuant to s 229C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – whether stay should be ordered – whether applicant has an arguable case – whether the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties are in favour of the application – whether risk of the review proving abortive without the stay – application granted.

LEGISLATION:

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 19, s 152, s 160, s 191 s 192, s 195, s 196, s 229, s 229B, s 229C

CASES:

Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685

Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279

Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service v The Regulator (under the Work Health and Safety Act [2022] QIRC 456

George v Rocket & Anor (1990) 170 CLR 104

Growthbuilt Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWIRComm 1002

Lindores Construction Logistics Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2018] QIRC 61

MPG Constructions Brisbane Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2020] QIRC 235

R v Jurasczo [1967] Qd R 128

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act [2021] QIRC 89

Watpac Construction Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2021] QIRC 257

APPEARANCES:

Mr D. Hegarty, HBA Legal for the Applicant.

Mr P. Waltham, Legal Advisor, Review and Appeals Unit, Workers' Compensation Regulatory Services for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    On 4 November 2022, Shape-Cut Pty Ltd ('the Applicant') filed an application for a review of a decision of the Respondent dated 10 October 2022, pursuant to s 229B of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ('the WHS Act').  At the same time the Applicant filed an application for a stay of the decision made by the Respondent on internal review to confirm the issue of Improvement Notice (I2064956) to the Applicant by an inspector under the WHS Act.
  1. [2]
    The stay application is resisted by the Respondent.

Background

  1. [3]
    On 25 August 2022, Inspectors Kym Tollenaere and Tony Sheean, both of whom are appointed under the WHS Act, attended the Applicant's premises at 121 Mica Street, Carole Park following notification of a serious event at the workplace.  The incident involved the use of an overhead gantry crane controlled remotely by a device referred to as a 'pendant'.[1]
  1. [4]
    At 7.00 pm on 25 August 2022, Inspector Sheean seized the 'pendant' and issued a 'Receipt for seized things'.  Inspector Tollenaere then issued a Prohibition Notice (P1031700) to the Applicant, prohibiting the use of the gantry crane as it was alleged the controls on the pendant were not legible.[2]
  1. [5]
    On 26 August 2022, Inspector Tollenaere issued two (2) Improvement Notices:  a System Notice (I2064956) and a Training Notice (I20646957).[3]
  1. [6]
    All three notices were subject to Internal Review.  On 10 October 2022, the Regulator set aside and cancelled the Prohibition Notice.  Inspector Tollenaere's decisions to issue System Notice and the Training Notice were confirmed.[4]
  1. [7]
    On 4 November 2022, the application for review and the application for stay in relation to both the System Notice and the Training Notice were filed.  The Respondent consented to the stay application with respect to the Training Notice, however, opposes the stay application with respect to the System Notice.[5]
  1. [8]
    Details of the System Notice contravention are as follows:

I, Kym Tollenaere reasonably believe on 25-AUG-2022 at 19.00 that you have contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 - section 19(3)(c).

  1. [9]
    A brief description on the System Notice of how the provision is being or has been contravened states:

Shape-Cut Pty Limited has not ensured, so far as is reasonably practicable the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work for operating overhead gantry cranes onsite.

Conversations with workers on 25/08/2022 identified that there is no system in place for the operation of overhead gantry cranes onsite.

The Statutory Framework

Work Health and Safety Act 2011

  1. [10]
    The power to issue the notice under s 191 of the WHS Act is enlivened where an inspector 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. [11]
    The purpose of issuing an Improvement Notice is aimed at remedying a contravention of the WHS Act or to prevent a contravention in circumstances that make it likely of re‑occurring.  An inspector may issue an Improvement Notice when the matter does not involve a serious risk to the health and safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.  An Improvement Notice may include directions concerning the measures to be taken to remedy the contravention or prevent the likely breach.[6]
  1. [12]
    The inspector's powers are derived from s 160 of the WHS Act. Relevantly, an inspector has the function of providing information and advice about compliance with the WHS Act;[7] to require compliance with the WHS Act through the issuing of notices;[8]and to investigate contraventions of the Act and assist in the prosecution of offences.[9]
  1. [13]
    The obligation imposed on an inspector under s 160 of the WHS Act is given effect by ss 191 and 192 of the WHS Act.
  1. [14]
    In order to issue the Improvement Notice, the inspector must reasonably believe that a person is contravening a provision of this Act; or has contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.
  1. [15]
    Sections 191 and 192 of the WHS Act set out the requirements that must be met before an Improvement Notice is issued:

191 Issue of improvement notices

  1. (1)
    This section applies if an inspector reasonably believes that a person -
  1. (a)
    is contravening a provision of this Act; or
  1. (b)
    has contravened a provision in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.
  1. (2)
    The inspector may issue an improvement notice requiring the person to -
  1. (a)
    remedy the contravention; or
  1. (b)
    prevent a likely contravention from occurring; or
  1. (c)
    remedy the things or operations causing the contravention or likely contravention.

192 Contents of improvement notices

(1) 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.
  1. (2)
    An improvement notice may include directions concerning the measures to be taken to remedy the contravention or prevent the likely contravention, or the matters or activities causing the contravention or likely contravention, to which the notice relates.
  1. (3)
    The day stated for compliance with the improvement notice must be reasonable in all the circumstances.
  1. [16]
    Subsection (3) of section 19 of the WHS Act provides at (c):
  1. (3)
    Without limiting subsections (1) and (2), a person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable –

…

  1. (c)
    the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work.
  1. [17]
    Section 229C of the WHS Act provides with respect to the stay of operation of decisions:
  1. (1)
    The commission may grant a stay of the decision to secure the effectiveness of the review.
  1. (2)
    A stay -
  1. (a)
    may be given on the conditions the commission considers appropriate; and
  1. (b)
    operates for the period fixed by the commission; and
  1. (c)
    may be revoked or amended by the commission.
  1. (3)
    The period of a stay must not extend past the time when the commission decides the application.
  1. (4)
    An application affects the decision, or carrying out of the decision, only if the decision is stayed.
  1. [18]
    The principles governing the exercise of a discretionary power to stay were enumerated in Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd.[10]  Those principles are summarised as follows: -
  1. 1.
    the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay which will be fair to all parties;
  2. 2.
    the mere filing of an appeal does not demonstrate an appropriate case or discharge the onus;
  3. 3.
    the court has a discretion involving the weighing of considerations such as balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties;
  4. 4.
    where there is a risk that the appeal will prove abortive if the appellant succeeds and a stay is not granted, courts will normally exercise their discretion in favour of granting a stay; and
  5. 5.
    the court will not generally speculate upon the appellant's prospect of success but may make some preliminary assessment about whether the appellant has an arguable case, in order to exclude an appeal lodged without any real prospect of success simply to gain time.
  1. [19]
    In determining whether to exercise the discretion to grant the stay, it is sufficient that the Applicant demonstrate a reason or an appropriate case to warrant the favourable exercise of the discretion.[11]
  1. [20]
    For the purposes of this application, the following principles drawn from Alexander are apposite:
  • there must be an arguable case on the merits;
  • the Commission's discretion involves weighing considerations such as balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties; and
  • the risk of the Application proving abortive.

Arguable case on the merits

  1. [21]
    In State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011,[12] the Commission considered the criteria to be applied in determining whether an applicant has an arguable case on the merits and observed:
  1. [12]
    As previously outlined in the Commission, a 'good arguable' case is 'one which is more than barely capable of serious argument, and yet not necessarily one which the judge believes would have a better than 50 per cent chance of success'.  It is a less stringent test than requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.
  1. [22]
    The Applicant raises two grounds to support its argument that it has an arguable case on the merits.
  1. [23]
    Firstly, the Applicant contends that there was no basis for Inspector Tollenaere to hold a reasonable belief that the Applicant had no system of work for the operation of the overhead gantry crane and was therefore contravening the WHS Act.
  1. [24]
    Secondly, the Applicant argues that the Improvement Notice is inadequately particularised, such that the following cannot be ascertained:
  1. a.
    what is the content of the duty said to be owed by the Applicant in terms of the system of work;
  2. b.
    what were the matters the Inspector alleges ought to have been encapsulated in that system of work;
  3. c.
    how the existing system of work failed to rise to the standard expected of the Inspector; and
  4. d.
    what standard the Inspector was assessing the system of work against and therefore what is required to comply with the System Notice.

Ground 1

  1. [25]
    The Applicant is critical of the Inspector in so far as she failed to make proper enquiries before issuing the Improvement Notice.
  1. [26]
    In support of that contention, the Applicant relies on the decision of Chief Commissioner Kite in Growthbuilt Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [13] where it was observed:

A reasonable and balanced approach does not allow an inspector to make assumptions and act on them without, at least, attempting to test, in a timely and practical manner, the validity of those assumptions.

  1. [27]
    The Applicant submits that Inspector Tollenaere made and acted on an assumption, that absent a documented policy or procedure means there is no system of work, without making reasonable enquiries to test the validity of that assumption.
  1. [28]
    The Respondent submits that the Inspector has made sufficient enquiries to inform her reasonable belief that the Applicant is contravening section 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act, in that it is failing to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that it has in place a safe system of work for the operation of overhead gantry cranes.
  1. [29]
    The respondent identifies the following three grounds to inform the inspector's reasonable belief.
  1. [30]
    First, as deposed to in paragraph 15 of the Inspector's affidavit, the Applicant's workshop foreman Mr Beaman, stated that there are no exclusion zones in place for the lift.  The absence of exclusion zones is said to be supported by the CCTV footage of the critical incident which appears as exhibit 'KT2' to the Inspector's affidavit, and this clearly records no delineated exclusion areas around the lifting zone of the crane, and workers either under or in close proximity to lifted loads.
  1. [31]
    Inspector Tollenaere deposes that:[14]

At 19:00 hours on 25 August 2022, I formed the reasonable belief that the Applicant did not have a safe system of work in place at the workplace (written or otherwise) for the operation of overhead gantry cranes.  My belief was informed by:

  • a lack of any defined exclusion zones around the area of operation of bridge and gantry cranes while under load;
  • a lack of safe means of access to or egress from truck trays;
  • a lack of daily pre-start checks and regular maintenance inspections to identify any defects in cranes and their operational pendants;
  • a lack of documented procedures for the performance of the tasks associated with operation of bridge and gantry cranes; and
  • a lack of any records to confirm the nature and extent of training received by workers in the crane operation.
  1. [32]
    The second factor informing the Inspector's reasonable belief is the admission by Mr Beaman, the Applicant's workshop foreman that the injured worker does not have a ladder to climb up and down from (the truck), as deposed to in paragraph 11 of the Inspector's affidavit.
  1. [33]
    The validity of such reasonable belief was again said to be tested by the Inspector viewing the CCTV footage of the incident which clearly evidenced the lack of a safe means of access to and egress from the tray of the truck for the worker attaching the magnet clamps of the crane to sheets of steel.
  1. [34]
    The third factor informing the Inspector’s belief is the admission by Mr Beaman (as deposed to at paragraph 18 of the Inspector's affidavit) that the control buttons of the remote pendant which operates the crane were worn down and had been for some time.
  1. [35]
    Reasonable belief is not defined in the WHS Act.  In George v Rocket & Anor,[15] the High Court considered what 'reasonable grounds' meant in the context of whether or not a Magistrate had reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant.  In a unanimous judgment, the Court (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) said:

The objective circumstances sufficient to show a reason to believe something need to point more clearly to the subject matter of the belief, but that is not to say that the objective circumstances must establish on the balance of probabilities that the subject matter in fact occurred or exists: the assent of belief is given on more slender evidence than proof. Belief is an inclination of the mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition and the grounds which can reasonably induce that inclination of the mind may, depending on the circumstances, leave something to surmise or conjecture.[16]

  1. [36]
    A reasonable belief requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce the belief in a reasonable person. 
  1. [37]
    The Applicant argues that Inspector Tollenaere has, some three months after the Improvement Notice was issued, and with the benefit of the Applicant's submissions on internal and external review, reframed the alleged contravention and made further allegations which were never contended in the Improvement Notice, nor otherwise made by the Inspector at the time of issuing the notice.
  1. [38]
    The Applicant's submission calls on the Commission to draw an inference that any perceived lack of particulars contained within the Improvement Notice suggests that the Inspector did not or could not reasonably believe that a contravention of the WHS Act had occurred or was likely to occur.

Ground 2

  1. [39]
    It is contended by the Applicant that Inspector Tollenaere has failed to satisfactorily particularise the alleged contravention such that what the alleged deficiency is in the system of work cannot be ascertained on the face of the notice, beyond there being no system of work for the operation of gantry cranes.
  1. [40]
    The inspector recites the entirety of s 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act in the Improvement Notice.  However, it is not immediately apparent when reading the Improvement Notice the exact nature of the risk which is sought to be dealt with.
  1. [41]
    The function of particulars is to enable a person to know the nature of the allegation which they are called on to meet.[17]
  1. [42]
    The Applicant makes reference to the Explanatory Note for the WHS Act which states that the requirements of section 192(1) exist "…to ensure that the person who is issued with the notice understands the grounds for the inspector's decision, including (in brief) how the laws are being or have been contravened".[18]
  1. [43]
    In Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service v The Regulator (under the Work Health and Safety Act),[19] Industrial Commissioner Dwyer wrote:
  1. [20]
    In Lindores[20]His Honour Deputy President O'Connor (as he then was) citing R v Jurasczo[21]held that the function of particulars is to enable a person to know the nature of the allegation which he or she is called on to meet.  His Honour went on to reference an extract from Dare v Pulham:[22]
  1. Pleadings and particulars have a number of functions: they furnish a statement of the case sufficiently clear to allow the other party a fair opportunity to meet it…; they define the issues for decision in the litigation and thereby enable the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be determined at the trial…
  1. [21]
    While the contents of an improvement notice are not pleadings in the strict sense of legal drafting, and while the use of the term 'briefly' in s 192 of the Act allows an inspector to truncate their description of the contravention, the principles adopted by His Honour in Lindores are entirely apposite to establishing a standard for what an improvement notice must communicate.  It is not enough for an improvement notice to cite a section number of the Act imposing broad duties and then simply saying the system of work is unsafe (in the opinion of an inspector).
  1. [22]
    Section 192(1)(c) of the Act requires the issuing officer to describe how the Act is being contravened.  This necessarily requires sufficient description to enable a recipient of an improvement notice to understand what actions they are taking (or not taking) that give rise to the asserted contravention.
  1. [44]
    The argument advanced by the Applicant is that the Improvement Notice lacks the necessary particularity thereby leaving them to speculate as to how the notice is to be responded to.  A failure to comply with the statutory requirement for a notice under s 192 of the WHS Act may render the notice invalid.
  1. [45]
    For the reasons advanced above, I am of the view that the Applicant has raised an arguable case on the merits.

Balance of convenience

  1. [46]
    The Applicant advances the following reasons for submitting that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the stay:
  1. a.
    there is a strong arguable case that the Applicant does have in place a safe system of work regarding the operation of overhead gantry cranes at the workplace;
  2. b.
    the notice is insufficiently particularised in that it contains no directions as to the measures the Applicant would need to take in order to comply with the notice.  Accordingly, the Applicant does not know what action is required to comply with the notice;
  3. c.
    the Respondent is not prejudiced by the granting of the stay; and
  4. d.
    the Applicant will continue to be bound by its obligations under the WHS Act.
  1. [47]
    The Applicant submits that the staying of the operation of the Improvement Notice will not remove the protection given by the notice to workers on the site.  I agree.
  1. [48]
    As I observed in MPG Constructions Brisbane Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011[23] the balance of convenience is:

… the course most likely to achieve justice between the parties pending resolution of the substantive hearing, bearing in mind the consequences to each party of the grant, or refusal, of the stay.

  1. [49]
    The Respondent contends that it will be clearly inconvenienced in the conduct of its functions under the WHS Act, and in particular that of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the WHS Act, as provided for in Section 152(b).
  1. [50]
    Whilst the Commission is mindful of the duties and responsibilities of the Respondent as the Regulator of work health and safety in this State, that responsibility in particular, under s 152(b) is an ongoing one.  That responsibility does not begin and end with this case.  It cannot reasonably be said that the Regulator is going to be inconvenienced in the conduct of its functions should a stay be granted.
  1. [51]
    Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the balance of convenience, and the competing interests of the parties favour the granting of a stay.

Abortive application

  1. [52]
    The prospect of an abortive appeal arises because the operation of the Improvement Notice remains in force and, as such, the Applicant continues to remain liable to prosecution by Work Health Safety Queensland until the application for external review is ultimately determined.
  1. [53]
    Accordingly, there is a risk that the appeal will prove abortive should the stay not be granted.  The Applicant contends that this favours the granting of the stay.
  1. [54]
    I do not accept the submission of the Respondent.  Should the stay not be granted, the Applicant would be required to respond (if able) to the Improvement Notice regarding what steps it had taken to remedy the contravention of s 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act. In short, the Applicant would be required to do the very thing which is the subject of the external review.

Conclusion

  1. [55]
    The Commission has a discretion to grant or refuse a stay.  In exercising the discretion, I have formed the view for the reasons advanced above that the Applicant has discharged its onus of demonstrating that it has an arguable case on the merits; the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties favours the granting of the stay; and there is a risk of the application proving abortive should the stay not be granted.
  1. [56]
    Accordingly, I am of the view that the application ought to be granted.

Order

  1. [57]
    I make the following orders:

1. The application in WHS/2022/188 is granted;

2. Pursuant to s 229C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the internal review decision dated 10 October 2022 is stayed on the condition that the Improvement Notice the subject of the review is also stayed; and

3. Pursuant to s 229C(2)(b) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the stay of the internal review decision, and the Improvement Notice the subject of the review, will remain in effect until the application for the external review is heard and determined by the Commission.

Footnotes

[1] Applicant's submissions filed 14 December 2022, [1]-[2].

[2] Applicant's submissions filed 14 December 2022, [3]-[4].

[3] Applicant's submissions filed 14 December 2022, [5].

[4] Applicant's submissions filed 14 December 2022, [6]-[7].

[5] Applicant's submissions filed 14 December 2022, [8]-[9].

[6] Watpac Construction Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2021] QIRC 257.

[7] Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 160(a).

[8] Ibid s 160(d).

[9] Ibid s 160(e).

[10] (1985) 2 NSWLR 685, (Alexander).

[11] MPG Constructions Brisbane Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2020] QIRC 235, [14].

[12] [2021] QIRC 89, [44].

[13] [2018] NSWIRComm 1002, [96].

[14] Affidavit of Kym Tollenaere dated 30 November 2022, 21.

[15] (1990) 170 CLR 104.

[16] Ibid [115]-[116].

[17] Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279, 286.

[18] Explanatory Note, Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), 92.

[19] [2022] QIRC 456.

[20] Lindores Construction Logistics Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2018] QIRC 61.

[21] [1967] Qd R 128, 135.

[22] (1982) 148 CLR 658.

[23] [2020] QIRC 235, [41].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Shape-Cut Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 490

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    O'Connor VP

  • Date:

    21 Dec 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
Alexander & Ors v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Cite 2 - (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 169 CLR 279
Cite 2 - (1990) 169 CLR 279
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1982) 148 CLR 658
Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service v The Regulator (under the Work Health and Safety Act) [2022] QIRC 456
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 456
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 456
Fritz v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 89
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 89
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 89
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 104
Cite 2 - (1990) 170 CLR 104
Growthbuilt Pty Ltd v Safe Work NSW [2018] NSWIRComm 1002
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] NSWIRComm 1002
Cite 2 - [2018] NSWIRComm 1002
Lindores Construction Logistics Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2018] QIRC 61
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QIRC 61
Cite 2 - [2018] QIRC 61
MPG Constructions Brisbane Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2020] QIRC 235
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 235
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 235
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 235
R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1967] Qd R 128
Cite 2 - [1967] Qd R 128
Watpac Construction Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2021] QIRC 257
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 257
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 257

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.