Source: https://prosecutions.commerce.wa.gov.au/prosecutions/view/1392
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 11:37:27
Document Index: 15911497

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 9', 'arts 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9']

1 BU5988/12 21 & 22 September 2011 9th November 2012 5.45(2A) 1.16(2)(a)(i) $2,500.00 9th November 2012
Being a self-employed person at a workplace, failed to ensure that asbestos work at the workplace involving more than 10 m2 of non-friable asbestos-containing material
(a) was done by the holder of an unrestricted licence or a restricted licence (or a person employed or otherwise engaged by the holder of an unrestricted licence or a restricted licence); and
(b) was done in accordance with Part 9 of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd edition
contrary to regulation 5.45(2A) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.
The Accused trades as Distinctive Fencing, an unincorporated business principally engaged in the installation and removal of fencing.
The Accused was subcontracted by Fencing Unlimited Pty Ltd (ACN 105 353 580; Fencing Unlimited) to remove the existing corrugated cement fence on the boundary between 6 and 8 Houston Crescent, Bunbury, and replace it with colourbond fencing. Fencing Unlimited had been engaged to perform this work by the owner of 6 Houston Crescent.
On 17 July 2012, Fencing Unlimited Pty Ltd (ACN 105 353 580) changed its name to Maasprop Pty Ltd (ACN 105 353 580).
The existing fence was at least 26 m long and approximately 1.4 m above ground and 0.6 m below ground. The Accused was aware that the existing fence contained asbestos. Neither the Accused nor Fencing Unlimited held an asbestos removal licence under the Regulations.
On 21 September 2011 the accused began work on removing the existing fence by breaking off the aboveground portion, leaving the belowground portion unremoved and scattering small fragments of fencing on the ground. This is contrary to Parts 9.5.2 and 9.10 of the Code.
Overnight from 21 to 22 September 2011, the accused left the removed aboveground portion of fencing uncovered in the backyard of 6 Houston Crescent. This is contrary to Part 9.10 of the Code.
The Accused continued work on the remaining portions of the existing fence on 22 September 2011. On neither 21 nor 22 September 2011 did the accused wet the fence to prevent generation of asbestos dust, contrary to Part 9.5 of the Code; nor did he wear appropriate respiratory protective equipment, contrary to Part 9.7.1 of the Code, or erect barriers and warning signs in the area, contrary to Part 9.2 of the Code.
The accused entered an early guilty plea and was convicted.