of manufacturer’s instructions or of the Australian Standards if there was no evidence that those alleged contraventions represented a risk to health and safety. At the end of the discourse Mr McCarthy conceded that the risk to health and safety arising from the contravention nominated by Mr was an inference drawn from the fact of the alleged contravention alone. He argued that the Australian Standards are of such authority that the non-compliance must point to a risk to health and safety. The Tribunal expressed the view that this was a ‘long bow’ to which Mr McCarthy responded is a question of degree.” “it On 21 September 2015 the applicant filed unsolicited further submissions on regulation 225(4). The applicant expressed concerns that the Tribunal may have misunderstood the nature and role of regulation 225(4). The concern was said to arise from the Tribunal’s question concerning whether any operation of regulation 225(4) was dependent on any being served on a person. This ‘notice’ issue has been addressed above. The short answer is that there is no explicit requirement for a notice under regulation 225(4) but it is implicit. Some form of notice must materialize from the inspection in order to trigger the rectification or repairs that regulation 225(4) speaks of. The person in control of the site cannot be expected to read the inspector’s mind. The applicant argued more fully that the outcome of the referred to in regulation 225(4) is the ‘inspection’ triggering mechanism and in particular there would need to be a finding indicating a risk to health and safety for this trigger to apply and not a mere with the AS or even a breach of a provision of the Act or Regulation that does not present a risk to health and safety. The applicant contended that regulation 225(4) was relevant only to the ordering of repairs, alterations and additions and was not capable of being breached until such an order was made and not complied with. It was contended by the applicant that these were not the facts of this case because Rovera had immediately complied with the notice. The respondent did not object to the unsolicited further submissions from the applicant. The respondent sought to file its own further submissions on
of manufacturer’s instructions or of the Australian Standards if there was no evidence that those alleged contraventions represented a risk to health and safety. At the end of the discourse Mr McCarthy conceded that the risk to health and safety arising from the contravention nominated by Mr was an inference drawn from the fact of the alleged contravention alone. He argued that the Australian Standards are of such authority that the non-compliance must point to a risk to health and safety. The Tribunal expressed the view that this was a ‘long bow’ to which Mr McCarthy responded “it is a question of degree.” On 21 September 2015 the applicant filed unsolicited further submissions on regulation 225(4). The applicant expressed concerns that the Tribunal may have misunderstood the nature and role of regulation 225(4). The concern was said to arise from the Tribunal’s question concerning whether any operation of regulation 225(4) was dependent on any ‘notice’ being served on a person. This issue has been addressed above. The short answer is that there is no explicit requirement for a notice under regulation 225(4) but it is implicit. Some form of notice must materialize from the inspection in order to trigger the rectification or repairs that regulation 225(4) speaks of. The person in control of the site cannot be expected to read the inspector’s mind. The applicant argued more fully that the outcome of the ‘inspection’ referred to in regulation 225(4) is the triggering mechanism and in particular there would need to be a finding indicating a risk to health and safety for this trigger to apply and not a mere with the AS or even a breach of a provision of the Act or Regulation that does not present a risk to health and safety. The applicant contended that regulation 225(4) was relevant only to the ordering of repairs, alterations and additions and was not capable of being breached until such an order was made and not complied with. It was contended by the applicant that these were not the facts of this case because Rovera had immediately complied with the notice. The respondent did not object to the unsolicited further submissions from the applicant. The respondent sought to file its own further submissions on
ROVERA-SCAFFOLDING-ACT-PTY-LTD-v-DIRECTOR-GENERAL-OF-THE-CHIEF-MINISTER,-TREASURY-And-ECONOMIC-DEVELOPMENT-DIRECTORATE-Administrative-Review-2016-ACAT-127.docx