Prosecution Details

[1] 1/3 Regulation 3.18(1)(a)

Being an employer of persons at a workplace, failed to ensure that, as far as practicable, the floor of the workplace was free from obstructions that may cause a person to trip or fall.

2/3 Regulation 4.37(1)(b)

Being an employer of persons at a workplace, failed to ensure that measures were provided to prevent, as far as practicable, the use of plant in a manner that could render the plant a hazard to persons at the workplace.

3/3 Regulation 3.27(a)

Being an employer of persons at a workplace, failed to ensure that a gas cylinder at the workplace was appropriately secured and protected from damage.

[2] Section 55

Was a director of a body corporate which was guilty of an offence under the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996, made under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, which was attributable to his neglect; contrary to Regulations 3.18(1)(a) and 4.37(1)(b) of the Regulations.

On 16 December 1997 the defendant's premises were visited by an inspector and five notices issued for alleged breaches of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. A further visit was made to the workplace on 12 May 1998 where conditions were found to be essentially unchanged.

The inspector was concerned that the work area was so untidy that it created several trip hazards for persons within the workplace and that these hazards were within the vicinity of operational machinery.

The regulation 4.37(1)(b) prosecution concerned the use of a hydraulic brake press that did not afford adequate protection to the operator when in use. The press neither had adequate guarding nor set up such that on the downward stroke it would stop at an appropriate mute point. This item of machinery had been the subject of an improvement notice on 16 December 1997.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the regulation 3.18(1)(a) and section 55 breaches and not guilty to the regulation 4.37(1)(b) breach. The regulation 3.27(1) breach was withdrawn.