Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Elements:, The defendant sourced the forklift and work box attachment from…

- - - - The facts indicate that Individuals involved were... Therefore, • It is not disputed that the defendant was a PCBU pursuant to s 5 of the WHS Act. As such the defendant had a duty to “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking”: s 19(2) of the WHS Act.
        
        2. The defendant owed to the workers engaged by the defendant in its business or undertaking a duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act while the workers were at work in the business or undertaking;
        
        By virtue of the fact that the aggreived are a PCBU - Is it?
        The defendant had a duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act to “ensure” the health and safety of its workers, so far as reasonably practicable. The duty requires the identification of risks in the workplace, so far as is reasonably practicable. The duty requires the identification of risks in the workplace and the adoption of measures to eliminate or minimise them, so far as is reasonably practicable (see Kirk v Industrial Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1 at [34]). The duty is positive, non-delegable and requires duty holders to search for, detect and eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, risks to safety.
        
        Element 3: The defendant failed to comply with that work health and safety duty; and
        
        How do you fail to comply ?
        
        19(3)
        
        2 more items...
        
        Cherrie could potentially incur penalties under section 28(1)
        
        1 more item...
        
        by not ensuring risks that can be reasonably praticalty dealt with are not
        
        1 more item...
        
        Duty of directors?
        
        1 more item...
        
        Manufacturer liability
        
        2 more items...
      - A useful discussion of these principles is located in Neil Foster, Workplace Health and Safety Law in Australia (LexisNexis 2012) [7.41]ff.
        
        Law of Workplace Safety (Seminar Guide)
        
        Page 76 Work Health and Safetv Law
        
        Autumn 2023 purpose unrelated to his work. The rationale was that the worker was not at work at the time of the injury. This decision was made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW) (the predecessor to the Former Act). There are problems with the result in Rech. First, simply because a worker is not at work', does not mean that the health and safety risk does not exist. Bolton (referred to above) makes it clear that an injury is not needed in order for a person to be in breach of the legislation. Hence while the injury has taken place outside of work in a technical sense, there is still a risk at the workplace. Put another way, the risk of work would continue to be there when the worker commences work. Secondly, the issue is somewhat moot in the context of the Model Act. The definition of workplace under s 8 of the Model Act imports a temporal requirement. A workplace is any place where work is carried out.
- - - - Conduct a risk assessment in relation to the task which: **assessed the risks associated with the task and consider whether it was appropriate and safe to use the FLT with a WP attachment to perform the task or whether the task could be performed on a solid structure like a scaffold or plant specifically designed to lift people like a scissor lift;
        
        Provide safe plant, including mobile plant designed to lift people, such as a scissor lift, to workers to use when performing the task;