Prosecution Details

[1] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that BN-Riched Treatment, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[2] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that BN-Riched Shampoo, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[3] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Quench Shampoo, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[4] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box collection Hair-Do, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[5] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection Hold-It, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[6] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection Tex-ousse, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[7] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection Gel-It, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[8] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection Cold Chisel, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[9] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection Shine-On, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[10] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection So-Straight, for use at a workplace, failed, so far as was practicable, to ensure that adequate toxicological data in respect of the substance and such other data as was relevant to the safe use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of the substance, was provided when the substance was supplied.

[11] Being a person who supplied a substance, namely that Tool-Box Collection So-Shiny.

The defendant was a distribution company of retail and professional products used by hair dressers. One range of products distributed by the defendant was called the "that" range. The "that" range consisted of various hair treatments, shampoos and hair styling products.

On 23 September 1997, the defendant supplied the products which were the subject of the charges in the complaint, to a hair salon but failed to provide any toxicological information with respect to the products, or any information with respect to the safe handling, processing, storage, transport or disposal of any of the products.

Without this information, an employer that uses these products is unable to discharge their duties under sections 19(1)(b) and (e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 by properly assessing the risks involved with the products and to train staff and implement appropriate procedures.

The defendant was issued with an improvement notice in respect to the provision of material safety data sheets on 29 January 1997.

The defendant had entered a not guilty plea but was not represented at trial.

The penalty was imposed under section 23(4) as a global penalty.