District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v GN Residential Construction Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 764 Hearing dates: 11 December 2020 Date of orders: 17 December 2020 Decision date: 17 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Scotting DCJ Decision: 1 GN Residential Construction Pty Ltd is convicted. 2 I impose a fine of $900,000. 3 The offender is to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed. 4 I order that pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. 5 The offender is to enter into the Work Health and Safety Project Order set out at [92]. Catchwords: CRIME – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – duty of employers – risk of death or serious injury – workers injured SENTENCING – objective seriousness – deterrence - aggravating factors – mitigating factors – good prospects of rehabilitation – plea of guilty – assistance to law enforcement authorities – remorse – Work Health and Safety Project Order Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 Cases Cited: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1 R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) GN Residential Construction Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Agius SC/P Boncardo (Prosecutor) B Hodgkinson SC (Defendant) Solicitors: NSW Department of Customer Service (Prosecutor) Sparke Helmore (Defendant) File Number(s): 2020/320731 Publication restriction: None Judgment Introduction 1. GN Residential Construction Pty Ltd (the offender) appears for sentence after it pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act) for breaching its health and safety duty and thereby exposing Christopher Cassaniti, Kahled Wehbe, David McKenzie, Mathew Stubbs, Nematalla Menhem, Tryfonas Ecomonides and Christian Young to a risk of death or serious injury. 2. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1.5 million. Facts 1. The parties tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts that can be summarised as follows. 2. The offender was the principal contractor of a construction project in Macquarie Park (the site). The offender engaged Synergy Scaffolding Service Pty Limited (Synergy) for the purposes of designing, erecting, maintaining and dismantling scaffolding at the site. 3. Over several months, the scaffold structure tied to Building L1 was gradually dismantled under the direction of both the offender and Synergy. By 1 April 2019 most, if not all, of the ties to Building L1 had been removed, yet the scaffold was still in use by workers at the site. Further, it was found that the scaffold was overloaded when it collapsed. 4. Mr Cassaniti, a form worker at the site, was killed when the scaffolding structure collapsed and crushed him. His co-worker, Mr Wehbe, was also trapped underneath the collapsed scaffold and suffered serious crush injuries. 5. Mr Economides and Mr Young were on level nine of the scaffold when it started to collapse. They managed to jump from the scaffold onto the building. 6. Mr McKenzie, Mr Stubbs and Mr Menhem were working near building L1 and had to run to avoid the collapsing scaffold. Background 1. The offender is a construction company, part of a group referred to as 'Ganellen'. 2. The offender was engaged on 17 January 2017 by developer Greenland (Sydney) Lachlan's Line Macquarie Park Development Pty Limited to design and construct a mixed-use residential and commercial business development known as 'Lachlan's Line' (the project). The project was to be constructed at 25-27 Epping Road, Macquarie Park, New South Wales (the site). The offender was appointed as the principal contractor. 3. The project involved the construction of seven major structures including Building L1, Building L2 and the Podium, which was a slightly built up ground floor area between Buildings L1 and L2 with garden beds and landscaping. 4. The offender subcontracted several entities, including Synergy, to perform work at the site. These included: 1. Titan Cranes and Rigging Pty Limited (Titan) to design, erect, maintain and dismantle hoists at the site; 2. Brobrik NSW Pty Limited (Brobrik) to install brick facades at the site; 1. Brobrik engaged the Trustee for the Sultana Family Trust trading as Swoomate Pty Limited (Swoomate) to provide metal fabrication and installation services at the site; 1. Future Form Group Australia Pty Limited (Future Form) to perform formwork at the site; and 2. Fresh Landscapes and Gardens (Fresh Landscapes) to provide gardening and landscaping services. 1. As the site was large and relied on many different trades from different entities, there were always multiple workers on site on any given day. Subcontract for scaffolding with Synergy 1. On 18 October 2017 the offender entered into a written agreement with Synergy. The scope of the works to be performed by Synergy were set out in that agreement as follows: (i) Subcontractor's Scope of Works – Scaffolding The works to be carried out under this contract includes the provision of all design, labour, plant and materials necessary to satisfactorily carry out the complete Scaffolding package and associated works to the project, in accordance with the Specification, as shown on the Drawings and as indicated on this Scope of Works. 1. Synergy were contracted to design the scaffolding (the Scaffold) used on Building L1 which was a steel modular scaffold. The Scaffold structure was tied to Building L1 for stability. There were two components of the Scaffold: 1. A full perimeter façade scaffold approximately 13 levels high (perimeter scaffold); 2. A hoist/loading platform to carry workmen and materials which was about nine levels high and stood at approximately 28 metres tall (hoist/loading platform scaffold). 1. In the subcontracting agreement dated 18 October 2017, the offender requested from Synergy to include a Two Tonne Loading Platform adjacent to the hoist/loading platform scaffold in the design. 2. On 27 February 2019 Mr Hussein Merhi, Synergy's site project manager, supplied the offender with Scaffold plans that included the requested Two Tonne Loading Platform. The plans were signed off by Synergy's structural engineer. 3. There is conflicting evidence regarding the capacity of the Scaffold. Synergy rated the Scaffold as heavy-duty 675 kilograms, however a duty category simply relates to a single working platform and does not indicate that every platform within the scaffold has the same duty category. The Scaffold plans did not specify the load rating for each level of the requested Two Tonne Loading Platform. 4. The offender's position was that it interpreted from the plans that two tonnes could be placed on each level of the hoist/loading platform scaffold simultaneously. If this was correct, the hoist/loading platform scaffold could carry 18 tonnes in total at any one time. The offender did not enquire with Synergy as to the capacity of the Scaffold in final design drawings or in its built form. 5. At the time of collapse it was found that there was a live load of 18,932 kilograms stored on the Scaffold. It was unclear whether the Scaffold was able to hold 675 kilograms or 2 tonnes per level, but in either case, the Scaffold was overloaded when it collapsed. Systems of work 1. As the offender was part of the Ganellan group, it was required to develop a project specific Integrated Quality, Safety & Environment Management Plan (QSE Management Plan). 2. Workers on the site were inducted into the offender's systems and given a site-specific induction covering the site safety rules and any potential hazards. 3. The offender consulted with workers on site on a routine basis through: 1. Toolbox meetings; 2. WHS committee site walks; 3. Foreman meetings; 4. Subcontractor site (structure) meetings; and 5. Subcontractor fitout meetings. 1. Synergy was contractually obliged to perform monthly reviews of scaffolding at the site and to sign them off. After the reviews, a handover certificate would be issued by Synergy with a 'scaff tag' update identifying that the Scaffold is safe for use. Monthly handover certificates were provided for the Scaffold stating 675 kilograms heavy duty. However, the perimeter scaffold was later dismantled before the hoist/loading platform scaffold, and neither the offender nor Synergy clarified whether this changed the load rating. Synergy did not provide separate handover certificates for the hoist/loading platform scaffold which was still in use, and the offender did not follow up to ensure that these were provided. 2. Sometime in October 2018 there was an issue involving tampering with the scaffolding. It was then agreed that Synergy would try to undertake weekly inspections of the scaffolding on the site, including the Scaffold at Building L1. This did not occur in the month leading up to the incident. Circumstances leading up to the incident 1. Between 1 and 5 March 2019 most of the perimeter scaffold had been dismantled. 2. On 5 March 2019 Mr Jordan Ocran, 2nd in charge leading hand for Synergy, completed an inspection of the remainder of the Scaffold on building L1. Mr Ocran went to every level on Building L1 and verified that the ties were installed correctly. He issued handover certificate #1604018 on 12 March 2019. Mr Ocran did not conduct any other safety walks or inspections in the lead up to the incident. Other Synergy workers and trained workers on behalf of the offender were responsible for attending to the maintenance of the Scaffold. 3. Between approximately 5 and 9 March 2019, bricks were preloaded onto the Scaffold at each level. Each pallet of bricks weighed approximately 1.2 tonnes. This was done deliberately to take advantage of the hoist before it was removed. 4. On 12 March 2019 the hoist commenced being removed, leaving a T-shape portion. The hoist ties remained. 5. On 21 March 2019 the Scaffold was stripped down to level 10 of Building L1. These strip works were performed by Mr Isaac Wihongi, Synergy's leading hand. 6. Later that same week, Swoomate employees installed shelf angles to the edges of the balconies of Building L1 in preparation for brick work. Some of the shelf angles were placed in locations where scaffold tie points would have otherwise been. Three shelf angles could not be installed as hoist ties were in the way. 7. Mr Ciaran Dunne, the offender's general foreman, phoned Mr Isaac Wihongi, leading hand for Synergy, and asked for scaffolders to be sent to remove the remaining hoist ties. Mr Wihongi was informed by his workers that the hoist ties had been placed resting on the Scaffold and that this was causing the ledgers to bend. Each hoist tie weighed approximately 500 kilograms. Mr Wihongi claims that he telephoned Mr Dunne to inform him that nothing could be leant on the Scaffold and that it needed to be held with a crane. Mr Dunne denies that this conversation occurred. 8. On 30 March 2019, Future Form workers were constructing an upturn/blade wall on the ground level facing towards Building L1. Approximately 40 metres had already been erected, however the final 15 metres could not be completed as it needed to run through the base of the Scaffold. There were five transoms at the base which were obstructing the path. 9. Future Form advised Mr Dunne that the transoms needed to be removed. At around 10:00am, Mr Dunne sent an image of the transoms via text message to Mr Wihongi. Mr Wihongi responded that it would be okay to take them out. At around 11:00am Mr Dunne sent an image to Future Form showing that the transoms had been removed so that the form workers could continue working. The incident 1. On 1 April 2019 there were approximately 20 Synergy workers at the worksite, but no scaffold work was scheduled to occur on the Scaffold at Building L1 on that day. 2. In the morning, Mr Lewis Sultana and Mr Christopher Fenech, Swoomate installers, were using the Scaffold to install the three remaining shelf angles for the installation of brick work. These were the shelf angles which could not previously be installed due to the hoist ties being in the way. Both installers completed this process prior to lunch and then left site. 3. Mr Ecomonides and Mr Young, Brobrik bricklayers, were using the Scaffold on level nine to install brickwork to the façade of the balconies. They both claim that the Scaffold felt shaky after returning from lunch, and that they observed that no ties were present connecting the Scaffold to Building L1. 4. Mr Cassaniti and Mr Wehbe, Future Form workers, had been directed to finish constructing the final 15 metres of the upturn/blade wall underneath the Scaffold. 5. The incident occurred at approximately 12:00pm when the Scaffold collapsed. 6. Mr Economonides and Mr Young managed to jump from level nine of the Scaffold onto Building L1 as it began collapsing. 7. Mr McKenzie, a foreman for the offender, and Mr Stubbs and Mr Menhem, landscapers from Fresh Landscapes, were working at the podium level and were required to run after the Scaffold began collapsing in order to avoid the falling debris. 8. Mr Cassaniti and Mr Wehbe had been working directly underneath the Scaffold and were trapped by the rubble and debris. They both suffered from crush injuries. 9. Mr Cassaniti was calling for help from underneath the rubble for 20 minutes before his injuries proved fatal. Mr Wehbe suffered a broken pelvis, shoulder, leg, ribs and severe bruising. He is still in recovery. The investigation 1. Inspectors from SafeWork NSW attended the site at approximately 1:30pm. Ganellan senior executives also attended the site to help. 2. Between 2 April and 7 May 2019 SafeWork NSW conducted numerous inspections of the wreckage before and during the removal process. It was revealed that: 1. No obvious ties were observed to still be connected to the collapsed Scaffold; and 2. Loose ties and potential tie components were observed amongst the wreckage. 1. After being removed, the Scaffold wreckage was weighed by Inspector Joshua Kent from SafeWork NSW and presented in his report dated 17 November 2020. This process took 11 days to complete. Components of the Scaffold were weighed separately to other material in order to determine the weight of material stored on the Scaffold. 2. It was found that there was a minimum live load of 18,932 kilograms on the Scaffold consisting of items such as bricks, formwork and other stored material, but excluding factors such as persons working on the Scaffold or wind force. This is in excess of the maximum capacity of the Two Tonne Loading Platform or the 675-kilogram heavy duty rating. After the incident 1. The offender ceased all construction activities on the site, except for recovery works, until 14 May 2019. 2. Mr Patrick Wark, a third-party engineer, inspected other scaffolding located at the worksite and the remaining loading platforms were de-rated from two tonnes. 3. The scaffold on Building L4 was de-rated due to a blade wall being erected through the base of the scaffold. This was similar circumstances to the construction that Mr Cassaniti and Mr Webhe were working on under the Scaffold that collapsed at Building L1. 4. At a broader level the Ganellan group, and subsequently the offender, undertook the following steps: * Engaged an independent scaffold engineer each month to inspect the scaffold on each of its sites and provide a report and sign-off that the scaffold is structurally compliant in addition to the subcontractor's own scaffold certificates; * Revised the Scaffold Plan Review Checklist; * Published a Scaffold Erection & Maintenance policy to operate on all sites; * Implemented a separate weekly Project QSE Meeting to forecast the current and following week's activities; * Engaged Recovery Partners to provide appropriately qualified secondees when QSE site coordinators were on leave; * Engaged an external Registered Training Organisation (RTO) to enhance WHS training by delivering construction safety awareness training to Ganellen employees, including supervisors, to update their knowledge about WHS requirements relevant to site activities. The training is run monthly and delivered on site. Ganellen site employees and construction executives are required to attend this training; * Distributed a companywide safety alert regarding the incident; * Developed and introduced the 'Monthly Safety Blitz' as part of the Safety Initiatives Program. Site teams are required to complete a checklist and satisfy themselves that the subcontractors are following safe work practices and ensuring control measures are effective with regard to the chosen topic for the month; * Increased consultation via the 'Monthly Safety Message' which is used to communicate and raise awareness within the company on topics such as health and wellbeing; * Developed the monthly 'Quick Safety Facts' poster to capture the offender's monthly performance and recognise the efforts of workers and subcontractors in creating a safer workplace; * Created an additional senior management role for the Ganellen group titled Senior Health Safety and Environment Manager (HSE); * Introduced a new additional inspection regime, whereby senior management attend site with the senior HSE and undertake inspections on a monthly basis; * Implemented an electronic system known as HammerTech in September 2019 that provides accurate information through real time analytics, tracks inductions, competencies and actions arising from inspections, reduces the time taken to complete an audit and monitors site team and contractor performance, including safety performance. The Offender's Case on Sentence 1. The offender relied on the affidavit of Chris Strat affirmed 4 December 2020. I will not repeat matters that I have already referred to. 2. Mr Strat is the Senior HSE of the Ganellen group and was appointed in that role on 21 May 2019 after the incident occurred. Mr Strat's role involves continually reviewing and developing each of the aspects of the QSE systems on sites. 3. The Ganellen group currently employs approximately 50 staff and has about 300 subcontractors working on its projects. 4. The offender engaged Synergy as an expert contractor in the provision and maintenance of scaffolding for the site. The tender was awarded to Synergy not purely on cost, but also on reputation and its safety systems. The tender submitted by Synergy was about $1 million more expensive than the cheapest tender. 5. The offender had in place an extensive safety system for the site. 6. Before the conclusion of the SafeWork NSW investigation, the offender approached SafeWork NSW before any charges had been laid and acknowledged that it had breached its obligations under the Act. The offender notified SafeWork that it would plead guilty to a charge that reflected that breach, and in addition, offered to enter into an Enforceable Undertaking. 7. Further, Mr Strat deposed that the offender wanted to facilitate the earliest possible hearing in relation to this matter so as to minimise the ongoing anguish which has been caused to the Cassaniti and Wehbe families and their friends. 8. On behalf of the offender, Mr Strat accepts responsibility for its failures that gave rise to the risk that exposed Christopher Cassaniti, Kahled Wehbe, David McKenzie, Mathew Stubbs, Nematalla Menhem, Tryfonas Ecomonides and Christian Young to the risk of death and serious injury. The offender and its senior managers acknowledge and deeply regret the tragedy of Mr Cassaniti's death and Mr Wehbe's serious injuries and extend their apologies to all workers impacted and their family and friends. 9. Mr Nicholas Kodomichalos, the offender's sole director, attended the hospital to visit Mr Webhe on the day of the incident and offered support to his family members. The offender's director and general manager also met with the Cassaniti family and offered their condolences and support. Fundraising was undertaken on the site and the offender matched the proceeds on a dollar for dollar basis which were evenly distributed between the Cassaniti and Wehbe families. The offender also arranged counselling to be available for all workers and provided consulting rooms on site for about one month following the incident. 10. Mr Strat deposed that the offender has a strong sense of corporate citizenship and community engagements. Since 2008 the offender has been a sponsor and major donor of the Property Industry Foundation which builds homes for homeless youth. The details of further charitable donations and community support is summarised in Mr Strat's affidavit which I will not repeat. Consideration 1. I have had regard to the objects of the Act set out in section 3 and the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Objective Seriousness 1. The offence is of the utmost objective gravity. 2. The offender had the control of the site and was able to monitor the scaffold and Synergy's performance of its contractual obligations. The progressive removal of the scaffold was planned. The overloading of the hoist occurred because of a deliberate decision to make use of the hoist while it was available, coupled with a failure to clarify and have certified what the load capacity of the Scaffold was. Extra weight was added to the Scaffold by the presence of the hoist ties that were resting on it. 3. The risk posed by the lack of ties to the building was known to the offender. It was also known that there was a history of ties being tampered with and removed by trades other than Synergy. 4. The complete absence of ties before the collapse would have been obvious if a visual inspection had been conducted. No steps had been taken to inspect the Scaffold since 5 March 2019, even after it was resolved to increase the inspection frequency to weekly. 5. In circumstances where the Scaffold was overloaded and the ties to the building had been removed, the likelihood of the risk occurring was so high that it was almost certain. 6. The potential consequences of the risk were a risk of death to a number of workers. 7. The steps that could be taken to eliminate or minimise the risk were known to the offender. The steps had been identified in the agreement with Synergy and in its safety system documentation. 8. The steps to be implemented were simple and inexpensive. 9. The extent of the harm caused by the offence is substantial. Mr Cassiniti, an 18-year-old apprentice, was tragically killed. Mr Wehbe was seriously injured and has been unable to return to work. 10. The offender engaged Synergy as a specialist contractor and it required Synergy to have in place a detailed safety system and to be involved in its own safety system. Whilst it was entitled to rely on the expertise of Synergy, the offender had sufficient knowledge to understand that it was not providing the level of service necessary to ensure the safety of the workers using the scaffolding. 11. I have taken into account the maximum penalty for the offence. Deterrence 1. The penalty imposed in relation to this offence must provide for general deterrence. Employers must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. The community is entitled to expect that both small and large employers will comply with safety requirements. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [180]. 2. The penalty imposed must also provide for specific deterrence. The offender still operates a large business performing commercial construction work that involves a considerable amount of high risk construction work. Aggravating Factors 1. The injury, harm and loss caused by the s 32 offence was substantial: s 21A(2)(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In order for the aggravating factor to be established, I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the harm was greater or more deleterious than may ordinarily be expected for the offence in question: R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 at [26]. The offence does not require an injury to be sustained but only the creation of a risk. In this case, the death of Mr Cassaniti and extensive injuries suffered by Mr Wehbe are sufficient to establish the aggravating factor. Mitigating Factors 1. The offender does not have any record of previous convictions s 21A(3)(e) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender was incorporated in 2012. 2. The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation: section 21A(3)(h) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The steps that the offender has taken after the incident demonstrates that it has good prospects for rehabilitation. Mr Strat asserts that the offender has seen significant improvements in its safety performance since the introduction of HammerTech and other safety management systems. The offenders Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate has fallen from 28.92 to 15.29 injuries per million hours worked. 3. The offender has demonstrated remorse: section 21A(3)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Mr Strat on behalf of the offender accepted responsibility for its actions and has expressed contrition and remorse. The offender has also taken steps to assist the Cassaniti and Webhe families, and all of its workers, after the incident. 4. The offender entered a plea of guilty: section 21A(3)(k) and section 22 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is entitled to a discount on penalty that reflects the utilitarian value of that plea: R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 and R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1 at [32]. The plea also indicates remorse: Borkowski at [32]. The appropriate discount is 25%. 5. The offender co-operated with the SafeWork investigation: section 21A(3)(m) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Ganellen senior executive attended site on the day of the incident and offered assistance to police and first responders. The offender approached SafeWork NSW to inform them that it had breached the Act and that it was prepared to enter into an Enforceable Undertaking or Work Health and Safety Project Order. The offender has implicated itself in the offence and this should be taken into account in mitigation of the penalty imposed. Other matters 1. The offender has proposed that it complete a Work Health and Safety Project Order, pursuant to an order imposed by the Court pursuant to s 238 of the Act. The offender proposes to set up the "Scaffolding Industry Safety Standard Working Group" to formulate a safety standard for dissemination in the construction industry. The offender has undertaken to pay $104,000 towards the establishment of the working group, a detailed communication plan and costs of publication of the standard. The full details of the proposal are set out in Exhibit 6. 2. The prosecutor supports the order. The proposed order serves the purposes of sentencing and furthers the objects of the Act and I am satisfied that it is appropriate. Penalty 1. GN Residential Construction Pty Ltd is convicted. 2. I have taken into account the Victim Impact Statements prepared by Mrs Cassiniti and Mr Wehbe. Pursuant to s 30E Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999, I have taken into account that the harmful impacts of Mr Cassaniti's death endured by his family is evidence of harm to the community. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to take into account Mrs Cassaniti's VIS in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed. 3. Through her VIS, Mrs Cassaniti conveyed the esteem in which Christopher was regarded by his family, friends and workmates and her family's pain and anguish caused by his loss. I would also like to acknowledge Mr and Mrs Cassaniti's significant contribution to increasing awareness of workplace safety issues. I agree with Mrs Cassiniti that there is much work to be done to achieve national harmonisation of work health and safety laws, which is an object of the Act. 4. Mr Wehbe's VIS conveyed the serious ongoing impacts of the injuries that he sustained in the incident. In short, he has not been able to return to work and has lost his independence. He has been left with intrusive feelings of guilt that he survived and Mr Cassaniti did not. He continues to require significant ongoing medical treatment. 5. The appropriate fine is $1.2 million that will be reduced by 25% to give effect to the plea of guilty. 6. I impose a fine of $900,000. 7. The offender is to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed. 8. I order that pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. 9. The offender is to enter into a Work Health and Safety Project Order and to comply with the following conditions: 1. The offender will establish, co-ordinate and fund a working group known as the Scaffolding Industry Safety Standard Working Group, consisting of an independent chair, construction and scaffolding technical specialists (including GN Residential Construction Pty Ltd) as well as SafeWork NSW, Union and Industry Association representatives totalling ten (10) members. 2. The offender will arrange 12 meetings of the working group within the next 12 months to deliver a Scaffold Industry Safety Standard for the construction industry. The Standard will be a practical tool that construction workers, site supervisors, site managers and project managers can use to ensure that scaffolds are procured, erected and maintained during the course of construction to ensure structural integrity at all times, including during the dismantling process. 3. The offender will produce the Standard in electronic form that can be also be printed in hard copy. 4. The offender will take steps to publish the Standard in the industry and to the public. 5. The offender will pay the administrative and publication costs outlined in Exhibit 6. ********** Amendments 18 December 2020 - corrected paragraph numbering DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 December 2020