NSW Caselaw
Industrial Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Inspector Gelonese v Ghevondian & Hyecorp Construction Pty Ltd [2010] NSWIRComm 12
Inspector Bruno Gelonese of WorkCover Authority of New South Wales(Prosecutor) PARTIES: Vigen Ghevondian (First defendant) Hyecorp Construction Pty Ltd (Second defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 174; 175 of 2009
CORAM: Marks J
CATCHWORDS: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY - breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by the corporate defendant - personal defendant deemed guilty of same offence by s 26(1) - early guilty pleas - appropriate penalty - objective seriousness - inadequate safety procedures - inadequate risk assessment - serious breach - general and specific deterrence - remorse and contrition - no prior convictions - penalties imposed
LEGISLATION CITED: Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 - s 8(2), s 26(1)
HEARING DATES: 14 December 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11 February 2010
Mr M Scott of counsel (Prosecutor) Solicitor: Legal Group, WorkCover Authority of NSW LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr J Mendel of counsel (First and second defendants) Solicitor: Diamond Conway Lawyers
JUDGMENT:
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CORAM: Marks J
Thursday 11 February 2010
Matter No IRC 174 and 175 of 2009
Inspector Bruno Gelonese v Vigen Ghevondian and Hyecorp Construction Pty Ltd
Prosecution under s 8(2) by virtue of s 26(1) and under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
JUDGMENT ON PENALTY
[2010] NSWIRComm 12
1 The prosecutor, Inspector Bruno Gelonese of the WorkCover Authority of New South Wales, has charged the defendant, Hyecorp Constructions Pty Ltd ("Hyecorp") with a breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 ("the Act"). The prosecutor has also charged the personal defendant, Vigen Ghevondian, with the same breach, by reason of the application of s 26(1) of the Act in that Mr Ghevondian was a director of Hyecorp and is deemed to have committed the same offence as Hyecorp. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the offences with which they are charged and this judgment is concerned only with the question of penalty. 2 An agreed statement of facts was tendered into evidence, which is in the following terms: 1. At all material times the Prosecutor was an Inspector duly appointed under Division 1 of Part 5 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 ("the Act") and empowered under Section 106(1)(c) of the Act to institute proceedings in the within matter.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate