04.03.2021

Demolishing the “I’m not a PCBU” defence

In WorkSafe New Zealand v Dong SH Auckland Limited [2020] NZHC 3368, the High Court considered the statutory concept of a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU). 

The facts of the prosecution were uncomplicated.  During the demolition of a residential property in December 2017, a wall fell onto a neighbouring property causing damage.  Asbestos was subsequently discovered in the demolished building materials.  Quick Earth Moving Limited had carried out the demolition. It was charged by WorkSafe, pleaded guilty and was fined $150,000.  WorkSafe laid 3 charges against Dong SH Auckland Limited, a project management consultancy, in respect of the incident. 

Dong SH denied liability saying that it was neither a project manager nor a head contractor for work undertaken at the residential property.  Dong SH said that it had merely acted as a facilitator between the property developer and Quick Earth Moving, with Dong SH’s director assisting the property developer on the basis of friendship.

The District Court held that WorkSafe had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed all charges. The District Court was not satisfied that Dong SH had been engaged in any role in respect of demolition work at the property, and as such it did not have duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) in respect of that work.

WorkSafe appealed, arguing that a person who manages a demolition project for another as their friend is under the same obligations as someone who is not a friend.

The High Court agreed with WorkSafe.  It held that the issue for the District Court was not whether Dong SH had contractually agreed to manage or supervise the demolition. Instead, the question was whether Dong SH was actually managing or supervising the demolition, and was therefore a PCBU in relation to the demolition.  The matter was remitted back to the District Court for a new trial.

The simple point is that there is no requirement that a PCBU be contractually tied to the activity in question, for a duty to arise under HSWA.  If it were otherwise, a fundamental purpose of HSWA –that workers and others affected by work be afforded the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety, and welfare from hazards and risks arising from work – could be frustrated or undermined.

If you have any questions about your health and safety obligations as a PCBU, please get in touch with our Health and Safety Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

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

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.