Australia, Sept. 1 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 31:

1. Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd (Whitehaven) has pleaded not guilty to an offence that, as a person who had a work, health and safety duty pursuant to s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed workers, in particular Mr Luke Randall, to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the WHS Act. On 26 May 2025, the matter was set down before me for hearing commencing 11 May 2026, with an estimate of four weeks.

2. Pursuant to s 247I of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (CPA), the prosecutor seeks orders for pre-trial disclosure under ss 247J, 247K and 247L of the CPA. The prosecutor accepts that, in relation to orders under s 247K of the CPA, the relevant orders are those in s 247K(a)-(f). The defendant opposes the orders sought by the prosecutor and contends that it is not in the interests of justice for the Court to make those orders which represent the highest level of case management, appropriate for complex cases. The defendant seeks an alternative form of case management orders.

3. I have determined to make orders which include the disclosure orders sought by the prosecutor, with some minor timetable adjustments. My reasons follow.

History of the proceedings

4. The Application to Commence Proceedings and Summons in this matter were filed by the New South Wales Resources Regulator on 8 November 2024. The Summons was issued by the Court later that day with a first return date of 17 February 2025. On 14 February 2025, the first mention date was vacated and the matter was listed for second mention on 28 April 2025. Orders were also made imposing a timetable for the defendant to seek and obtain further particulars from the prosecutor.

5. At the second mention of the matter on 28 April 2025, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the offence charged. The matter was then adjourned for further mention to allow the parties to negotiate appropriate case management directions.

6. On 26 May 2025, counsel for both parties informed the Court that they were unable to reach agreement on appropriate case management directions for the matter. There were a number of points of disagreement between the parties. The most significant disagreement concerned the prosecutor's proposed order that the defendant provide it with a copy of the expert evidence on which it intends to rely at hearing. The parties provided the Court with competing proposed case management orders and the matter was set down for an interlocutory hearing to resolve the issue.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198587d7ca7326751fc5a31a)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.