Thiess Pty Limited v Industrial Court of New South Wales

(2010) 78 NSWLR 94; [2010] NSWCA 252

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Misconstruction of statute
5. › Whether misconstruction of occupational health and safety provision constituted jurisdictional error
6. › Whether error led to conviction without power
7. › Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
8. › Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531
1. Occupational Health and Safety
2. › Employer's duty to non-employees
3. › Exposure to risk
4. › Meaning of 'exposed to risks'
5. › Whether proximity to source of risk sufficient
6. › Whether specific mechanism of harm must be identified
7. › Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW), s 8(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Certiorari
4. › Effect on appellate court orders
5. › Whether quashing of first instance decision deprives appellate court of jurisdiction
6. › Merger of first instance orders in appellate judgment
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Merger of judgments
4. › Whether orders of court of first instance merge in judgment of appellate court on dismissal of appeal

Quick Take

A person is 'exposed to risks' within s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW) when they are sufficiently proximate to the source of risk for it to possibly impinge on their health or safety; it is not necessary to identify a specific mechanism by which the risk could materialise. A charge under s 8(2) that identifies both the relevant risk and the acts or omissions constituting the contravention does not fall within the jurisdictional error identified in Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW. The question whether an appellate court that erroneously fails to identify jurisdictional error at first instance itself commits jurisdictional error was left open by Basten JA.