AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 April 2026

NSW Resources Regulator, Department of Regional NSW v Young Mining Company Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWDC 101

Other
CRIME PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY FALL INTO UNGUARDED CONVEYOR CHUTE LIKELIHOOD OF RISK OCCURRING CATEGORY 1 OFFENCE

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 101
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 April 2026
Judge(s): Scotting DCJ

Background

Young Mining Company Pty Ltd (YMC) operated the Thuddungra Mine. On 10 August 2021, a worker, Leslie Price, was operating the mine's Photometric Plant when he fell into an unguarded chute leading to a conveyor belt while investigating a blockage. He became partially buried by material being fed into the chute by a reciprocating plate feeder and suffered injury.

The NSW Resources Regulator prosecuted YMC for a Category 1 offence under s 31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (gross negligence exposing a worker to a risk of death or serious injury), with a Category 2 offence (s 32, strict liability) pleaded in the alternative. Aditya Jhunjhunwala, described as YMC's managing director and an officer of the company, was prosecuted for a Category 2 offence for failing to exercise due diligence under s 27 of the Act to ensure YMC's compliance with its primary duty.

The prosecution alleged the plant was in a state of disrepair with inadequate guarding and inadequate emergency stop controls, and that the mine's Safety Management System (SMS) was out of date and not being implemented. Both defendants pleaded not guilty.

  • Did YMC engage in conduct that exposed a worker to a risk of death or serious injury, without reasonable excuse, and with gross negligence (Category 1 offence, s 31)?
  • In the alternative, did YMC fail to comply with its primary duty under s 19(1) in a way that exposed the worker to a risk of death or serious injury (Category 2 offence, s 32)?
  • Was Mr Jhunjhunwala an officer of YMC within the meaning of the Act?
  • Did Mr Jhunjhunwala fail to exercise due diligence to ensure YMC complied with its s 19(1) duty, and did that failure expose the worker to risk of death or serious injury (s 27/s 32)?

Decision

The Court found YMC guilty of the Category 1 offence under s 31. Scotting DCJ was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that YMC engaged in conduct, without reasonable excuse, that exposed Mr Price to a risk of death or serious injury, and that the conduct was engaged in with gross negligence. The key factual findings centred on the prolonged state of disrepair of the plant, the absence of adequate guarding around the chute, inadequate emergency stop controls, and the failure to maintain or implement the mine's SMS.

The Court was also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Jhunjhunwala was an officer of YMC and found him guilty of the Category 2 offence under s 32. The Court concluded he failed to exercise due diligence to ensure YMC complied with its primary duty, and that his failure exposed Mr Price to a risk of death or serious injury. The judgment highlighted his failure to supervise and adequately fund the implementation of the SMS.

In assessing the evidence, the Court made significant credibility findings. Mr Price, the injured worker, was found to be significantly unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies in his testimony, and his evidence was only accepted where corroborated or against interest. By contrast, the evidence of experienced mining witnesses (Mr Yates, Mr Hargraves, and Mr McCormack) was accepted. The former Quarry Manager, Mr Navybox, was accepted as a credible and capable witness who faced an "enormous" task on arrival at the mine. The Court rejected the defence's attempt to attribute blame to Mr Navybox, noting that YMC's and Mr Jhunjhunwala's duties were not transferable and that each retained personal responsibility for compliance.

The judgment noted the mine had been operated for an extended period without reference to its documented SMS, which had been allowed to fall out of date. The evidence painted a picture of systemic failures in safety management rather than an isolated incident.

Orders Made

  • YMC found guilty of the Category 1 offence (s 31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011).
  • Mr Jhunjhunwala found guilty of the Category 2 offence (s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011).
  • Sentencing to be determined at a later date (the judgment as provided addresses verdict only).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court held that allowing a safety management system to fall out of date and failing to implement documented procedures could ground a finding of gross negligence (Category 1 offence under s 31), not merely a strict liability Category 2 breach. The prosecution successfully elevated the charge by pointing to systemic, prolonged failures rather than a single lapse.

  • Under s 27 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the due diligence obligation requires more than passive oversight. The Court found that the managing director's failure to supervise and adequately fund SMS implementation was itself a breach exposing workers to risk, and confirmed that officers cannot delegate their way out of personal liability, as the duties of the corporation and the officer are distinct and non-transferable.

  • No basis was established for attributing the failures to the Quarry Manager, with the Court emphasising that the company's and its managing director's duties persisted regardless of any shortcomings by on-site management. The Quarry Manager was characterised as having inherited an already failing system with little management support.

  • A detailed credibility analysis proved central to the outcome. Although the injured worker's evidence was largely excluded due to inconsistency, the prosecution succeeded on the strength of corroborating witnesses, demonstrating that a case can be sustained through reliable, experienced witnesses without reliance on the complainant's testimony.

  • Failure to maintain and upgrade emergency stop controls in accordance with Australian Standards, combined with inadequate guarding around hazardous plant, was found to be central to both the Category 1 and officer liability findings. The District Court treated the absence of regular documented audits of plant guarding and emergency controls against current standards as a significant factor in establishing the breaches.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19(1), 27, 31, 32
- Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2014 (NSW)
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW)
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (NSW)
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
- Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW)

Key Cases Cited:
- Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v R (2012) 246 CLR 92
- Bulga Underground Operations v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
- Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Vibro-Pile (Aust) Pty Ltd (2016) 49 VR 676
- Director of Public Prosecutions v JCS Fabrications Pty Ltd and JMAL Group Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 50
- Grasso Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2021] NSWCCA 288
- R v Commercial Industrial Construction Group Pty Ltd (2006) 14 VR 321
- Nelson v John Lysaght (Australian Ltd) (1975) 132 CLR 201