In prosecutions under s 32 of the WHS Act, the causation element requires proof that the defendant's non-compliance was a substantial and significant cause of the workers being exposed to risk at the time they were performing their work. Where the defendant provided advice that was not followed and the workers were instead following a different methodology prepared by third parties, the chain of causation is severed. The absence of evidence as to what the omitted step (here, computer modelling) would have revealed in relation to the defendant's actual advice is fatal to establishing causation. The distinction between prospective assessment of breach and retrospective assessment of causation must be maintained.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
8 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.