9.05.2018

First sentencing under Health and Safety at Work Act; time to count the costs

There has been a abundance of commentary following the imposition of a $100,000 fine in the first sentencing for a conviction under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (Act): WorkSafe New Zealand v Budget Plastics (New Zealand Limited) [Link to decision]

Under the Act, the maximum fine that can be imposed where a ‘person conducting a business or undertaking’ (PCBU) fails to comply with a duty that exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury/illness is $1.5 million.  The maximum equivalent under the previous legislation was $250,000.

The Budget Plastics Case

In Budget Plastics, the defendant company had identified, but failed to guard a piece of machinery used in recycling plastic. Some six weeks after the problem was identified, an employee’s hand was dragged into the machine’s auger, and mostly  amputated as a result.

At sentencing, WorkSafe advocated for a starting point for the fine of $900,000.

The Court considered that the defendant company’s culpability was moderate, and identified a starting point for a fine within a band of $400,000 to $600,000.

The Court then assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors (and in particular, the company’s guilty plea, and their apparently dire financial circumstances) and imposed a fine of $100,000. Had it not been for the defendant company’s financial circumstances, it is likely that the fine would have been in the vicinity of $275,000 – 175% more what was ultimately imposed for the fine.

Increased Fines

Budget Plastic’s eventual fine of $100,000 was higher than comparable incidents under the previous legislation.  As recently as 2015, similar incidents of insufficient machine guarding causing amputations of fingers or limbs have resulted in fines of around the $40,000 mark (for example, WorkSafe New Zealand v Solly’s Freight (1978) Limited).

The message from the District Court in this case is clear – fines for breaches of health and safety duties will bite, and bite hard. A sentencing judge will now consider imposing fines of up to $300,000 for low culpability offences, $300,000 to $600,000 for medium culpability, and between $600,000 to $1.05m for high culpability.

As with the previous legislation, these fines cannot be insured against, and clearly at these levels could well have a significant impact on a business’ ability to pay or even its ongoing viability. In Budget Plastics, the company pleaded poverty and this was taken into account by the Court, however hardship will not be a consideration that is accepted readily – where a PCBU does not have the ability or has a reduced ability to pay a fine, it will need convincing accounting evidence to prove this.

Enforceable Undertakings

The significant fines that can (and will) be imposed, mean that a PCBU that finds itself in hot water would be well advised to consider “enforceable undertakings” (EUs).

An EU is an enforcement option under the Act, as an alternative to prosecution.  Essentially it is an agreement between the PCBU and WorkSafe.  An EU will set out remedial work which is required to achieve higher standards of health and safety for the PCBU’s workers, industry and community. It will also require the PCBU to make amends (reparation) to any victim(s) and contribute to WorkSafe’s enforcement costs. If the EU is breached, it can be enforced by WorkSafe for non-compliance (including by other enforcement action)

An EU is not offered by WorkSafe and requires the PCBU to first apply to WorkSafe for a suitability assessment. An EU will not be considered where there is an allegation of reckless conduct. The suitability assessment requires WorkSafe to assess a range of variables including the harm caused, and potential for harm; the PCBU’s prior conduct; relevant Government policy; and the victim(s) and/or union’s views.

To date, there have been three enforceable undertakings that have been accepted by WorkSafe.

The EUs to date have cost the PCBUs involved significant sums of money – between $85,000 and $129,000, plus reparation sums – however, in light of the fine imposed in Budget Plastics, it would appear that an EU makes good financial sense, and is well worth considering.  Many businesses will also feel that an EU, which allows them to invest in constructive health and safety initiatives which they control, is a better use of their money than a fine which goes to the Crown.

Invariably though, as with all health and safety matters, prevention will be better (and significantly cheaper!) than the ‘cure’.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

The Impact of Unclear Communication
The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Valmont Interiors Pty Ltd v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2021] NSWCA 9 is an example of an unclear direction resulting in a principal being unable to rely on a notification time bar in a construction contract.
11.10.2021 Posted in Construction
Penalties imposed for a single phone call attempting to enter a price-fixing agreement
The High Court in Commerce Commission v Specialised Container Services (Christchurch) Ltd recently imposed pecuniary penalties under the Commerce Act 1986 (the Act) for an attempt to enter into a pric...
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Update – August/September 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Exclusion of liability for deliberate breaches of contract 
In Mott Macdonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd [2021] EWHC 754 (TCC) the English High Court considered a summary judgment application on the applicability of a limitation of liability clause to an alle...
How low can you go?  Commerce Commission’s prosecution against Bunnings dismissed
The District Court recently dismissed the Commerce Commission’s case against Bunnings for alleged misleading and deceptive representations under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). In dismissing the Co...
Civil Aviation Bill introduced to Parliament
After five years of preparation, the Civil Aviation Bill has been introduced to Parliament.  The aviation industry has seen dramatic change in the three decades since the current Civil Aviation Act w...
30.09.2021 Posted in Aviation
Regulators do not “bend” on AML/CFT compliance: Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium Limited
Earlier this month, the High Court released its decision in Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium New Zealand Limited.
23.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Business Advice & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->