Legal Moot: Company Law Analysis, Trump Developments Ltd and WHS

This report presents a legal moot analysis focusing on company law, specifically concerning the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) and its implications for Trump Developments Ltd. The report examines the company's responsibilities in providing a safe workplace, evaluating risks, and implementing control measures. It references relevant case law, such as incidents in Western Australia, to illustrate the consequences of non-compliance, including fines and potential jail sentences for directors. The analysis emphasizes the importance of adhering to both US and Australian laws to ensure ethical and legal business practices, highlighting the potential legal complications arising from workplace safety failures. The report also outlines the different categories of penalties associated with WHS breaches, including fines and potential imprisonment, and the courts that handle these cases. The document stresses the need for companies like Trump Developments Ltd to prioritize worker safety to avoid legal issues and promote responsible business development.

Legal Moot (Company Law)

Table of Contents
TASK...............................................................................................................................................1
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................2

TASK
1.
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT)-
Occupational Health and Safety includes the evaluation and reduction of the risks which
can influence the health, safety or welfare of the individuals who are working in the workplace.
After 2012, this law is called as Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) and are different in various
states of Australia1. By referring to this law, it was the duty of Trump Developments Ltd to
provide safe workplace, evaluate the risk & implement suitable measures for controlling them.
They also need to make sure that the workers have knowledge of handing various machinery or
materials used in the business operations and they need to sketch a layout plan so that they can
give safe systems of work. Trump Developments Ltd need to have insurance and workers
compensation worker's compensation insurance for their workers.
Work health and safety act of 2011 defines various provisions which bounds an employee
follow various causalities of maintaining safety in workplace. While developing casinos in Las
Vegas Big Donald was unable to maintain safety at workplace and leads to 3 workmen
casualties. So, Trump Developments Ltd should follow up all laws and provisions defined in
work health and safety act to reduce future legal complications in business development ad
expansion. Company should follow up lawns of US as well as Australia to work legally and
ethically.
They have not implemented these practices which has cost them the casualties of their
workers2.
2.
Case law:
In a similar case, an employee in Western Australia was killed at the workplace because
crane components slipped when he was lifting it. After that the employee who was working in
the company were held guilty for breaching the OHS Act 1984 (WA) because they have failed in
1 Talbot, Anna. "Work Health and Safety Act v Australian Border Force Act:
Immigration detention workers caught in the crossfire." Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 135
(2016): 22.
2 Chan-Mok, Janet O., Carlo Caponecchia, and Chris Winder. "The concept of workplace
bullying: Implications from Australian workplace health and safety law." Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law 21.3 (2014): 442-456.
1

giving safe working condition. As a result, a fine of $45,000 and $90,000 was imposed on the
directors and company respectively3.
The punishment and fine on the defaulters is subjected through three categories. In the
category 1 which includes the highest penalty comprises of fine up to $3 million4. The directors
or defaulters can be sentenced to 5 years jail. In the Category 2 electrical safety is included and
company can face fine up to $1.5 million. In the third category director can face a fine of up to
$100,000. Category 1 will be prosecuted in the District court whereas category 2 and 3 will be
done in Magistrates Court5.
3 Australasian Legal Information Institute. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.austlii.edu.au/> [Accessed on 11th September 2017].
4 Australia: Directors convicted and fined $45k for work health & safety breach: lessons
learned. 2013. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/250878/Health+Safety/Directors+convicted+and+
fined+45k+for+work+health+safety+breach+lessons+learned>. [Accessed on 9th
September 2017].
5 Enright, P A Tony. "Work Health & Safety legislation; the fire engineer’s neglected
duty?." Case Studies in Fire Safety 2 (2014): 1-8.
2

3