Australia, Aug. 23 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 23:

1. On 27 January 2021 AWB Contractors Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (AWB), a marine and salvage contractor, was attempting to lift a yacht named "Crazy Train" from the water. In the course of that salvage operation the crane lift failed. The mast of the yacht struck and killed one of the workers Mr Max Haywood.

2. AWB has pleaded guilty to an offence that as a person who had a work health and safety duty pursuant to s 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (the WHS Act) it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed Mr Haywood to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the WHS Act.

3. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1,766,130.

The Risk

4. The risk described in par 16 of Annexure A of the Summons is as follows:

"The risk was to workers, in particular Mr Poulton and/or Mr Haywood and/or Mr Wilson and/or Mr Noble, of death or serious injury as a result of being struck, and/or crushed, by the load or part of the load and/or by part of the crane and/or lifting device during the lifting operation."

Reasonably Practicable Measures

5. Paragraph 17 of Annexure A of the Summons pleads particulars of the defendant's failure to comply with the duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act as follows:

"The defendant failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers, in particular Mr Poulton and/or Mr Haywood and/or Mr Wilson and/or Mr Noble, in that it failed to take any one or more of the following measures, each of which is alleged to have been reasonably practicable, to eliminate the risk to the health and safety of the workers, or, in the alternative, if it was not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk, to minimise the risk to the health and safety of the workers:

(a) Undertaking and implementing an adequate risk assessment before work commenced on [sic] re-floating and recovery of Crazy Train, from the Rozelle Bay Maritime Service Centre, in preparation for the lifting of the vessel from the water and disposal of the vessel at the defendant's premises, which included (but not limited to) any one or more of the following:

(i) preparing a detailed estimate of the weight of the vessel in air and in the water;

(ii) [deleted]

(iii) identifying the size of the crane and/or lifting device with any related plant and equipment (for example, not limited to, lifting slings, a portable crane scale/load cell however described) required to perform each of the projected lifts;

(iv) identifying size of the crew required to perform the lift, together with the appropriate qualifications, training and experience required by the 'lift crew';

(v) identifying the risk of the vessel re-sinking and identifying appropriate controls, including, but not limited to, the scheduling of the re-floating and recovery of the vessel to the defendant's premises at a date and time at which the appropriate crane/lifting and the appropriate lifting crew are available to lift the vessel out of the water at the defendant's premises for subsequent disposal; and, also, identifying and ensuring that equipment necessary to keep the vessel afloat is available to be deployed;

(vi) identifying the need, if any, for a written lift plan in relation to the proposed lifts;

(vii) reviewing any existing Safe Work Method Statements applicable to the re-floating and lifting of vessels, including, but not limited to reviewing any generic safe work method statements relating to the operation of cranes and/or lifting devices to be used in the operations to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable any such generic safe work method statements are up to date and appropriate for use in relation to the subject task.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1983019314efda0bb5117c7d)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.