Two Russell McVeagh solicitors explain why Jason Krupp may have been a little too hasty to criticise WorkSafe for their stance on the MSD tragedy

Two Russell McVeagh solicitors explain why Jason Krupp may have been a little too hasty to criticise WorkSafe for their stance on the MSD tragedy

By Mark Campbell and William Findlay*

Intuitively, a small business might feel aggrieved if WorkSafe was to charge it following a lightning strike on one of its employees. 

"How can I be expected to prevent lightning", it might say.

However, where lightning can be reasonably expected, or has struck before, it might be prudent to install a lightning rod or some other protection.  For example, such measures are common on golf courses in certain parts of the world, and rightly so - the owners of the courses are not expected to prevent lightning but they are expected to take steps to prevent people being struck by it.

That important point was not made in Jason Krupp's column, criticising WorkSafe's decision to prosecute MSD, published last week. 

Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act, a hazard is defined to include "a situation where a person's behaviour may be an actual or potential cause or source of harm". 

Employers have a duty to take all "practicable steps" to prevent such harm. 

In employment law, that duty already includes a requirement to protect employees from the "hazard" of attacks from non-employees.

For example, inmates have been recognised as hazards to corrections officers, psychiatric patients have been recognised as hazards to health workers, and a council's inclusion of last names on name badges has been recognised as a hazard to its public facing employees because it increased the risk of disgruntled members of the public identifying employees' home addresses.

Nevertheless, the MSD case is a far cry from the typical prosecution of an employer who has failed to protect an employee from accidental injury.

This represents a change of tack from a now well resourced and funded regulator. 

It is always dangerous to speculate on what a case means before all the facts are known.

Here, it is still unknown what steps MSD were already taking to ensure that its employees were not harmed, or what additional steps WorkSafe alleges that MSD should have taken.  Nor do we know how MSD itself assessed the risk of such a hazard causing harm, or how such an assessment aligns with commonly accepted best practice for managing such hazards.  Once those matters are known, they will still have to be argued in court and adjudicated by a judge.

It may be that the attack was not a bolt from the blue.

For example, if as has been reported, John Tully had previously been evicted from MSD and had a long running dispute with it, the circumstances of that dispute might impose a higher duty on MSD.  If such matters where proven, a judge might find that "lightning rods" such as staff training, building design, or greater security were prudently available to MSD.  Alternatively, if not proven, a judge might not find those same steps to be practicable.

As Mr Krupps noted, health and safety compliance imposes significant costs, which are particularly difficult for small businesses to bear.

However, often the alternative to such compliance costs are the costs of defending a prosecution.

More generally, the cost of workplace deaths and injuries is substantial, and New Zealand has a poor record in this area.

The cost of defending a prosecution can be measured not just in dollars, but also in lost management time and lost productivity.  Although insurance is available to cover the cost of defence and reparations, as a matter of law insurance cannot cover fines, and in some cases insurers encourage companies to plead guilty to an offence even if there is a reasonable defence.  In any event, the non-monetary costs of a prosecution are not insurable and can be substantial, particularly given that a business's safety reputation is also an important asset worthy of protection.


Mark Campbell is a senior solicitor and William Findlay a solicitor in the Wellington office of law firm Russell McVeagh

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


NZ has ppor record in workplace health because there are still a significant number of NZers doing real work, and not sitting in safe officers and doing other governmental busywork.

And just how safe are those office jobs?.....the plethora of health related issues from sitting on backside all day is well known.......trouble is the Government through its regulators makes more and more people sit on their backsides all day and the human body was not designed for long inactive is more likely to succumb to a severe health related problem from sitting than out doing a physical acitivity....but we'll just ignore all the swelling legs, heart related issues, DVT's etc that are being experienced and blame it all on diet and not sitting on you butt!!!!!  
One issue that really annoys me is that we have Worksafe vs MSD which is State vs State heard in another State run system called the Courts.....SME's are screwed by the costs of the key tapping, office butt huggers.......and they'll endlessly talk about HAZARDS......when what they are all really playing is Hazzard ......
and just in case some of you miss the message listen again.......
Does legislation like the  H & S in Employment Act have to comply with the other Acts like the Bill of Rights 1688. NZBORA, and other Constitutional arrangements......the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc???.......Then there are the other obvious issues if these Constitutional arrangements do apply then surely it is only under Private vs State problems? ....and..... What happens when it is State vs State as there are other pieces of legislation which have effect??? The State is not an Individual.....and if I was to be taken to Court as an individual (business) then I want to know what rules will apply to me that are different from the State and what constitutional rights I have. Why should I be responsible for any criminals actions in the work place?
All the money that gets pumped into Government, law, Courts etc is completely insane spending when the foundations of our system are completely undermined and ignored by people who should know better!!!!   If I am a member of the public walking down the street and someone murders me......would Worksafe take the Police and the Government to Court for failing to keep me safe in their work place which is all public areas:

Other duties

15 Duties of employers to people who are not employees

  • Every employer shall take all practicable steps to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee while at work harms any other person.


Whenever I hear of new matters involving Government Safety-Nutters, I think of poore Mr and Mrs Berryman. Ruined by them. And, at the outset, by a National Government.

I think back to my father-in-law who knew them and his opinion of them.

Lets not forget it was not the department that killed them.  It was a twisted creep who dealt with his unhappyness by killing these women.   He shot them and spilled their blood.  He decided to do that.
How come nobody in media sticks a camera in the face of criminals.  But then demand answers from "the system".  What happened to personal responsibility. 

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are under pressure so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.