AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 8 April 2026

SafeWork NSW v ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWDC 89

Other
CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING BUSINESS RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY OTHER PERSONS OTHER

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 89
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 8 April 2026
Judge(s): Russell SC DCJ

Background

ANJ Container Services & Bond Stores Pty Ltd ("ANJ") operated a container services business at Banksmeadow, Sydney. On 21 April 2022, a truck driver, Mr Darren Spinks, drove his heavy vehicle into the ANJ site. After parking, Mr Spinks was walking away from his vehicle when he was struck by a reversing reach stacker — a large piece of mobile plant used to handle shipping containers — operated by an ANJ employee. Mr Spinks died from injuries sustained in the incident.

SafeWork NSW, the workplace health and safety regulator, commenced a prosecution against ANJ in the District Court, filing a summons (later further amended in December 2025) alleging that ANJ had breached its primary duty of care under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ("the WHS Act"). The prosecution's case was that Mr Spinks was either a "worker" (under s 19(1)) or, in the alternative, an "other person" (under s 19(2)) to whom ANJ owed a duty to ensure health and safety so far as reasonably practicable. The prosecution alleged that ANJ's failures exposed Mr Spinks to a risk of death or serious injury, constituting a Category 2 offence under s 32 of the WHS Act. ANJ pleaded not guilty, and the matter was heard as a judge-alone trial.

The prosecution's case centred on ANJ's alleged failures in several respects: it had not conducted an adequate risk assessment addressing the hazards of vehicles and mobile plant on a site where pedestrians and large machinery shared space; it had not developed, implemented, or enforced an adequate traffic management plan to separate pedestrians from mobile plant; it had not installed adequate physical barriers, signage, lighting, or presence-sensing devices on its reach stackers; and it had not ensured visitors were properly inducted into site safety procedures.

  • Was ANJ a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU)? This was a threshold element of the offence.

  • Was Mr Spinks a "worker" under s 19(1) of the WHS Act, or was he an "other person" under s 19(2)? The answer determined which subsection of the primary duty of care applied, though in either case ANJ owed a duty.

  • Did ANJ fail to comply with its duty? Specifically, did it fail to take reasonably practicable measures to eliminate or minimise the risk of persons being struck by mobile plant at the site — including failing to conduct adequate risk assessments, failing to develop and enforce a traffic management plan, and failing to implement physical controls to separate pedestrians from plant?

  • Did ANJ's failures expose Mr Spinks to a risk of death or serious injury? The prosecution had to establish a causal connection — that the failures were a "significant and substantial cause" of the exposure to risk.

  • Was there a novus actus interveniens (intervening act) that broke the chain of causation? ANJ appears to have raised the possibility that some intervening event or action by another party severed the causal link between its failures and the risk to which Mr Spinks was exposed.

  • If the primary charge under s 19(1) succeeded, was it necessary for the court to consider the alternative charge under s 19(2)? This was a procedural question about the structure of alternative charges.

Decision

The court's analysis proceeded methodically through each element of the offence. The judgment confirmed that the offence under s 32 of the WHS Act is one of strict liability (as provided by s 12A), meaning the prosecution did not need to prove any particular mental element — the focus was on whether the defendant's conduct, objectively assessed, fell short of what was required by the duty and thereby exposed an individual to the relevant risk.

On the question of ANJ's status as a PCBU, this was uncontroversial. ANJ was conducting a container services business at the Banksmeadow site and owed duties under the WHS Act.

The court addressed the characterisation of Mr Spinks — whether he was a "worker" under s 7 of the WHS Act or an "other person." The judgment noted the legal significance of the distinction for the applicable subsection of s 19, while also indicating that because the prosecution charged the s 19(1) duty as primary and the s 19(2) duty as an alternative, if the primary charge was made out, the court need not determine the alternative. Based on the available text, it appears the court found it sufficient to resolve the matter on the primary basis presented by the prosecution.

Central to the court's reasoning was whether ANJ had failed to take reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or minimise the risk. The judgment drew on the evidence concerning ANJ's risk assessment processes, its traffic management arrangements (or lack thereof), and the physical conditions at the site — particularly the "shared zone" where pedestrians and heavy mobile plant operated in proximity. The court identified multiple failures: the absence of an adequate risk assessment that properly addressed the hazards of reach stackers reversing in areas where pedestrians walked; the failure to develop, implement, and enforce a traffic management plan with measures to separate pedestrians from plant, establish exclusion zones, clarify right-of-way at pedestrian crossings, and address blind spots; and related deficiencies in induction, signage, lighting, and technological controls.

On the question of causation, the court applied the test of whether ANJ's failures were a "significant and substantial cause" of the exposure to risk, consistent with the authorities cited (including Baiada Poultry Pty Limited v The Queen and Orr v Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd). The court rejected any suggestion that a novus actus interveniens broke the chain of causation. The risk of a pedestrian being struck by a reversing reach stacker on a shared site without adequate traffic management was precisely the kind of risk that the duty was designed to address. ANJ was found guilty.

Orders Made

  • ANJ was found guilty of the Category 2 offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), for failing to comply with its health and safety duty in a manner that exposed Mr Spinks to a risk of death or serious injury.

  • The matter would presumably proceed to a sentencing hearing (the judgment text provided addresses the verdict, not sentencing).

Note: The full text of the judgment was truncated. The above summary of orders is based on the available portion of the decision. The precise orders at sentence, if made, are not covered in the text provided.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court held that PCBUs operating sites where pedestrians and heavy mobile plant share space must have comprehensive, documented, and enforced traffic management plans, and that vague or informal arrangements are unlikely to satisfy the duty to ensure safety so far as is reasonably practicable.

  • A risk assessment's quality and adequacy, not merely its existence, was central to the Court's analysis: a generic or incomplete assessment that fails to identify and address particular site hazards (including blind spots on plant, shared zones, and the presence of visitors) will not discharge the duty under s 19 of the WHS Act.

  • Under s 19 of the WHS Act, the duty owed by a PCBU extends to visitors and other persons on site regardless of whether they are characterised as "workers" or "other persons," and the Court confirmed that truck drivers and other visitors entering a site fall clearly within the scope of the PCBU's obligation to induct and protect them.

  • Because the offence under s 32 is one of strict liability, a PCBU cannot defend a charge by pointing to good intentions or the conduct of individual employees; the relevant question, as the District Court confirmed, is whether the systems of work as designed and implemented were adequate to eliminate or minimise risk so far as reasonably practicable.

  • In dismissing the argument that a novus actus interveniens broke the causal chain, the Court held that where the risk that materialised is the very risk the PCBU's duty required it to manage, an intervening act will not readily sever causation, and the proper inquiry is whether the defendant's failures were a significant and substantial cause of the exposure to risk.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 7, 12A, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 39, 154, 155, 171, 274, 275
- *Work