Citation: SafeWork NSW v Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 15
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 12 February 2025
Judge: Scotting DCJ
Background
Two related companies, Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd and Poultry Enterprises NSW Pty Ltd, operated as part of a group providing live bird catching and transportation services to poultry processors in NSW. Multiquip owned the plant and equipment, managed customer relationships and provided safety resources, while Poultry Enterprises supplied the labour. Both companies shared common management.
On 16 August 2021, a worker named Nathan Gutterson was fatally injured during a nighttime chicken harvesting operation at a farm in the Tamworth region. The work involved large specialised machinery, including a chicken harvesting machine and a heavy Combilift forklift, operating in a darkened or dimly lit shed environment. The combination of low visibility, moving heavy equipment, and the presence of ground workers in the same space created serious hazards.
SafeWork NSW prosecuted both companies under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), alleging each had failed to ensure the health and safety of workers as required under s 19(1) of that Act, thereby exposing Mr Gutterson to a risk of death or serious injury.
Legal Issues
- Whether the two offenders had breached their duties under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) by failing to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite
- The objective seriousness of those offences for the purpose of sentencing
- What aggravating and mitigating factors applied, including prior record, remorse, and cooperation with the regulator
- The appropriate discount to apply for guilty pleas and the resulting penalty for each offender
Decision
Both companies pleaded guilty. Scotting DCJ sentenced each company on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts, which described the harvesting process in detail, the layout of the machinery involved, and the circumstances of the fatal incident. The maximum penalty applicable to each offence was a fine of 17,315 penalty units (equivalent to $1,782,579).
His Honour assessed the objective seriousness of the offending and weighed the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. In mitigation, the court accepted that both offenders had no prior convictions, demonstrated genuine remorse (including practical support for the deceased's family), were good corporate citizens who had contributed to community initiatives, and had cooperated with SafeWork NSW's investigation. Victim impact statements from three members of Mr Gutterson's family were taken into account, with the harm to his family treated as evidence of harm to the community under s 30E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The court determined that the appropriate base fine for each company was $400,000. Each offender then received a 25% discount reflecting the utilitarian value of its guilty plea, in accordance with the principles in R v Thomson & Houlton and R v Borkowski. The resulting fine for each company was $300,000. Neither company contended it lacked the capacity to pay.
Orders Made
- Multiquip Poultry Pty Ltd convicted and fined $300,000
- Poultry Enterprises NSW Pty Ltd convicted and fined $300,000
- Both offenders ordered to pay SafeWork NSW's costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed
- Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996, 50% of each fine directed to be paid to the prosecutor (SafeWork NSW)
Key Takeaways
- Both companies in a corporate group can be separately convicted and fined under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) where each had distinct duties as a person conducting a business or undertaking, even where they shared management and operated as part of an integrated enterprise.
- A 25% guilty plea discount applied in this matter, consistent with the established approach in R v Thomson & Houlton and R v Borkowski, recognising both the utilitarian value of the plea and its role as evidence of remorse.
- Genuine post-incident remorse, including practical support provided to a deceased worker's family, was accepted by the District Court as a mitigating factor in the assessment of penalty.
- Under s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996, the court directed that 50% of each fine be paid to the prosecutor, a provision that applies in work health and safety prosecutions brought by SafeWork NSW.
- The fines imposed ($300,000 each, against a maximum of approximately $1.78 million) reflected the objective seriousness of the offending, the fatal outcome, and the mitigating factors accepted in each company's favour.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19(1), 32
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A(3)(k), 21A(3)(m), 22, 30E
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), s 122(2)
Cases
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
- R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
- R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412