Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — exposing workers to risk of serious injury or death — duty to consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities — "person conducting a business or undertaking" or "PCBU" — asbestos — wall collapse — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 17, 33, 34, 36(1)(a), 48(1) & 48(2)(c) — Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016, reg 21(3) . The defendant company faced three charges related to its being a person in charge of a business or undertaking (PCBU): one that it failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers by exposing them to asbestos; one that it failed to ensure the health and safety of its workers by exposing them to a collapsing wall; and one that it failed to ensure the health and safety of other persons by exposing them to a collapsing wall. The defendant had been engaged to redevelop a residential property, together with a demolition company that was responsible for demolishing and removing a dilapidated house. During the demolition part of the house collapsed onto the neighbouring property, endangering the occupants; further, an inspection showed that asbestos had been present in the house, contrary to the pre-demolition assessment of an employee of the demolition company. The demolition company had already been charged and pleaded guilty to charges arising from the incident. However the prosecutor argued that the defendant was the project manager or head contractor for the work, and was therefore also liable as the PCBU. The Court found that there was a duty on the PCBU to ensure the safety of workers and others; that the PCBU had failed in this duty; and that the failures had exposed workers and others to the risk of serious injury, serious illness or death. What remained was to show that the defendant was in fact the PCBU in relation to the demolition work. The Court found that the evidence showed that the defendant's director had merely facilitated and arrangement between the demolition company and the owner of the property. The defendant had no experience in demolition work and was in fact not formally involved in the project until after the wall had collapsed. The Court found that the defendant had not been a PCBU in relation to the demolition work. The charges were dismissed. Judgment Date: 27 August 2020