Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors v Simon Luigi John Ridge & Anor

[1998] WASCA 318

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Occupational health and safety
3. › Mining
4. › Duties of employers
5. › Deemed employer of subcontractor
6. › Whether principal engaged in 'mining operations'
7. › Whether principal had 'control' over subcontractor's plant
8. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), ss 4, 9(1), 9(3)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Beneficial construction
3. › Occupational health and safety legislation
4. › Meaning of 'provide and maintain plant'
5. › Whether obligation extends to ensuring subcontractor's own equipment is safe
6. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 9(1)(a)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Definition of 'mining operations'
3. › Developmental and construction work associated with operating a mine
4. › Whether contractor upgrading tailings facility engaged in mining operations
5. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 4
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from Court of Petty Sessions
4. › Whether findings of fact open on the evidence
5. › Whether conviction supported by evidence

Quick Take

A principal contractor engaged in developmental or construction work associated with operating a mine is engaged in 'mining operations' for the purposes of s 9(3) of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA) and is deemed the employer of subcontractors it engages. The obligation to 'provide and maintain plant' under s 9(1)(a) extends beyond supplying equipment to ensuring that a subcontractor's own equipment is safe, including by directing the subcontractor to rectify defects or prohibiting use of unsafe equipment. Control over the use of a subcontractor's equipment may be established by evidence of inspection regimes, directions as to use, and contractual responsibility for safety.