Girl dies after being thrown from Royal Show ride

[Reanimated35]

It's been quite a while, but there's some movement on this now. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-13/adelaide-show-ride-owners-fined-$157k-over-adelene-leong-death/8704040

 

Quote

• The owners of a Royal Adelaide Show ride that killed eight-year-old Adelene Leong have been fined $157,500, but cannot afford to pay.
• The company that owns the ride, C J And Sons Amusement, and one of its directors, Jenny-Lee Sullivan, pleaded guilty to breaching workplace safety laws by failing to maintain the ride in a safe condition.
• The amusement company was notionally fined $94,500, and Ms Sullivan $63,000, plus a maximum compensation sum of $20,000.
•  Employment Tribunal Magistrate Michael Ardlie said he was satisfied both were unable to pay the fines because of their dire finances and therefore declined to make any order which would force them.
• Convictions were recorded and the defendants each ordered to pay a state victims of crime levy of $420.
• "If the design registration process had proceeded, the level of scrutiny involved might have detected some of the design flaws which were inherent in Airmaxx."
• C J And Sons Amusement's maintenance regime was also inadequate.
• lack of information in the logbook
  • other omissions included failing to record injuries to other Airmaxx riders during shows in Melbourne and Sydney.
  • "There were two chests injuries, a neck injury which required a patron to be conveyed by ambulance, and a concussion,"
• There was no spotter to notice any patrons in distress on the ride during the Adelaide Show
• reported deck attendants using their mobile phones while people were either being loaded onto the Airmaxx or while it was operating.

 

 

At the time of a SafeWork SA audit shortly before the 2014 Adelaide Show, the Airmaxx was not operational because the four primary lock cylinders were being replaced, the court heard.

Another inspector, Hamish Munro, the sole director of Safe is Safe Pty Ltd, was subsequently directed to do the inspection.

Mr Munro and his company are facing separate charges over the ride tragedy.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Reanimated35

[rappa]

So let me get this straight, because you can't afford to pay you get no penalty?

 

How about all that companies assets are siezed, along with the personal ones of the directors and they are banned from ever being involved in the amusement industry ever again. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the new Chief Justice of the High Court - Justice Rappa!!!

(no, not sarcasm - i'm genuinely supportive of your proposal).

Edited July 13, 2017 by AlexB

[Tim Dasco]

27 minutes ago, djrappa said:

So let me get this straight, because you can't afford to pay you get no penalty?

 

How about all that companies assets are siezed, along with the personal ones of the directors and they are banned from ever being involved in the amusement industry ever again. 

I have read somewhere that they are banned from every operating rides in Australia again and non of the shows want them anyway.

[Theme Park]

27 minutes ago, djrappa said:

So let me get this straight, because you can't afford to pay you get no penalty?

 

How about all that companies assets are siezed, along with the personal ones of the directors and they are banned from ever being involved in the amusement industry ever again. 

Yeah that's actually not a bad idea.

[Reanimated35]

1 hour ago, djrappa said:

So let me get this straight, because you can't afford to pay you get no penalty?

 

How about all that companies assets are siezed, along with the personal ones of the directors and they are banned from ever being involved in the amusement industry ever again. 

I'm not completely sure how bankruptcies work, but I believe that's already happened and they were still $1m+ in debt. 

https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au/browsesearch-notices/notice-details/CJ-and-SONS-AMUSEMENTS-PTY-LTD-157759290/46e27083-a326-4a5c-a583-0c70571c8be3

 

From the linked article earlier:

Quote

"The first defendant has a debt of over $1 million and the income stream of the second defendant is, to say the least, minimal so there is simply no chance of paying the fine," 

Edit: I have no idea sorry. I'm 110% for your idea though. 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Reanimated35

[Tim Dasco]

Note saying they are. But if DW are found responsible for the accident for whatever reason what are the consequences? A lot of money?

[Reanimated35]

Wouldn't that be what insurance is for? 

Or if they were found negligent I guess that wouldn't count. 

But yes, think of a shitload of money, then double it and add a few 0's. 

[Levithian]

You can't take assets of directors of a company because they are not personally liable for any outstanding money the company may owe. The company just winds up, secured creditors get the first bite of the cherry if they actually have any assets that can be recovered and everyone else usually gets stiffed.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 hours ago, Levithian said:

You can't take assets of directors of a company because they are not personally liable for any outstanding money the company may owe. The company just winds up, secured creditors get the first bite of the cherry if they actually have any assets that can be recovered and everyone else usually gets stiffed.

Not entirely accurate. In the context of accident liability and the solvency of the company, yes, the directors are generally protected, but directors of a company ARE personally liable for several company obligations:

• debts incurred when the company becomes insolvent
• company losses caused by a breach of directors’ duties
• if you act as a guarantor or provide security over personal assets
• debts incurred by the company acting as trustee
• illegal phoenix activity
• other regulatory action that might be taken against you.

Even more specifically than that, many employer obligations (PAYG Withholding from employee wages and Employer superannuation contributions) can be applied as a liability to all Directors both separately and severally under the Director Penalty Regime.

[Levithian]

And none of that happened did it? I was going to start the above post by saying unless trading as insolvent (by the way, do you know how hard that is to prove?), but I thought that would only confuse things and wasn't needed as it had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Seriously, alexb, sometimes you lack context. The discussion is about the directors being liable for the fines they were issued with, not what else they may be liable for. Sometimes you just make things more confusing by taking it off topic.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Levithian

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I'm not familiar enough with the case to know what happened. Maybe they do owe employee benefits and entitlements?

Those who know me fairly well know a few things about my day job, so to answer your question, i'm aware of exactly what it takes to prove trading whilst insolvent, and its not as difficult as you suggest, but definitely not on topic here and so i won't delve further.

Now, again, restating that I haven't read the case, the info posted above suggests 'first defendant' and 'second defendant' - which would imply that both the company, and one of the directors of the company were sued separately and severally (and the article quoted above confirms this), so if the outcome of the case was liability on both, then of course you can seize the assets of both to meet judgments against both parties (separately), depending on the judge's orders - therefore Rappa's suggestion that the company AND director assets be seized is perfectly reasonable, considering they've both plead poor before the court.

I didn't lack any context. Your precise statement was "You can't take assets of directors of a company because they are not personally liable for any outstanding money the company may owe."

My response stated that it wasn't entirely accurate. I then stated in the context of liability and company solvency, generally what you have said is correct, but that there are times when directors are personally liable. If anybody's post was lacking context it was yours, by the very fact that you didn't, as you pointed out above, specify that your broad umbrella statement was in fact limited to the specific circumstances of the case.

That said, based on the article posted above, which referred to both the company, and one of its directors pleading guilty, that means both company and director have accepted liability and are liable, so in context, it isn't money the company owes (they're fined separately by the court) but money the director owes (based on the judgment entered against them as a result of their plea an individual), so again I restate that you could seize the assets of the director to meet the judgment entered against them personally, which was Rappa's point.

[Wil_i_am_not]

Not to be disrespectful to anyone involved in the incident, but is anyone aware of what actually happened to the ride? Has it been scrapped or is it still sitting in the owners yard? 

[HussRainbow87]

4 hours ago, Wil_i_am_not said:

Not to be disrespectful to anyone involved in the incident, but is anyone aware of what actually happened to the ride? Has it been scrapped or is it still sitting in the owners yard? 

The ride got sold to an American showman, left Australia only a few weeks ago.