Can a director distance themselves from the actions
of their company?
Director beats rap, but convicted after an appeal
The decision in
Inspector James v Paul (No 2)
[2011] NSWIRComm
117 (5 September 2011) has confirmed that company directors cannot rely upon
their apparent remoteness from the day to day operations of their business to avoid liability for an occupational
health and safety (OHS) incident.
Workplace incident
On 3 July 2006 an employee of Deckorform Pty
Ltd died of serious injuries sustained after a machine he had been operating
malfunctioned.
WorkCover NSW found that, at the time of the incident, the machine had been operated without a number of safeguards
which, had they been in place, would have prevented the incident.
Deckorform and its director, Mr Robert Paul, were charged and pleaded guilty to breaching sections 8(1) and 26 of
the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
(NSW) respectively.
Original decision – NSWIRC
In the first instance, Justice Marks of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission acknowledged that the incident
involved a ‘most serious breach of the Act’ and occurred in a workplace that was ‘defective and manifestly unsafe’.
His Honour also found that plant and equipment at the worksite was being operated by workers who were not competent
to operate them safely or to undertake necessary safety audits of the machinery.
Notwithstanding these considerations, and despite recognising that Mr Paul had ultimate responsibility for
implementing and ensuring compliance with OHS standards, his Honour dismissed the charges against Mr Paul on the
basis that he was too ‘remote’ from the day to day operations of the business.
Appeal before the NSW Industrial Court
The decision of the Commission was appealed
by WorkCover NSW to the NSW Industrial Court on the basis that Justice Marks had underrated Mr Paul’s role in the
management of Deckorform.
The Court stated that it was commonplace for
directors to be remote from the day to day operations of businesses and that Justice Marks had erred in giving this
factor weight.
The Court confirmed that while a director cannot necessarily be expected to have a detailed awareness of the day to
day activities of the businesses they manage, Mr Paul, as director, was ultimately responsible for the OHS
standards of the business, including ensuring that risk assessments of machinery were undertaken by appropriately
trained staff.
Importantly, Mr Paul’s OHS responsibilities were not reduced even though he:
·
relied upon local management to attend to the day to day operations of the business; and
·
did not have a detailed awareness of Deckorform’s day to day operations.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the appeal and fined Mr Paul $15,000.
More details:-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWIRComm/2011/82.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=inspector%20or%20james%20or%20v%20or%20paul
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=432e229f-4fe9-4133-afba-3618406effa3&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-02-27&utm_term=
|