Inspector Michael Dall v Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd. [2005] NSWIRComm 149

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session

CITATION: Inspector Michael Dall v Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd. [2005] NSWIRComm 149

PROSECUTOR: Inspector Michael Dall PARTIES: DEFENDANT: Dracon Contractors Pty Ltd.

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 626 of of 2004

CORAM: Haylen J

HEARING DATES: 05/09/2005 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/09/2005

PROSECUTOR: Mr R Reitano of counsel SOLICITORS: Phillips Fox LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

DEFENDANT: Mr J West QC with Mr Warren of counsel SOLICITOR: Paul Hines

JUDGMENT:

- 2 -

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN COURT SESSION CORAM: Haylen J 9 May 2005 Matter No IRC 626 of 2004 Inspector Michael Dall v Daracon Contractors Pty Ltd. Prosecution under s 16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT [2005] NSWIRComm 149

The defendant in this matter, Daracon Contractors Pty Limited, has pleaded guilty to a breach of s 16(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983. The circumstances leading to this prosecution by Inspector Dall involve construction work and an expansion project taking place at Kooragang Island and I will come shortly to the details. The charge to which the defendant has pleaded guilty alleges a breach of 16(1) of the Act in that there was a failure to ensure persons not in its employ, and specifically Mr Andrew Cosier, were not exposed to risk to their health and safety arising from the conduct of the defendant's undertaking when they were at its place of work. The particulars were as follows: There was a failure to ensure a system of work that was safe and without risk to health to non-employees for the unloading and transporting by forklift of 2 x 12 metre lengths of high density polyethylene pipes, weighing about 692 kilograms from a truck, referred to as "the unloading process" at the premises; and the failure included a failure to ensure adequate safe operating procedures for the unloading process at the premises, an alleged failure to ensure the parts were adequately secured to the forklift during the unloading process at the premises; failure to ensure a safe distance between pedestrians and the operation of the forklift; and failure to undertake a safe system to take into account the effects of the physical environment, strong winds and indentations and other irregularities in the surface of the premises on the stability of the pipes on the forklift during the unloading process.