CASE PROCEDURES – review of external decision – r.58 Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 – sch.3 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 – application for review of decision of Inspector of NOPSEMA to issue prohibition notice (PN 614) – Technip operates the Wellservicer facility (a diving support vessel) – carries out saturation diving activities – in the event of an emergency on the Wellservicer that requires hyperbaric evacuation, once divers are safely secured in the Self Propelled Hyperbaric Life Boat (SPHL) stored on board the Wellservicer, the SPHL is launched and joined by a Hyperbaric Support Rescue Vessel (HSRV) that is located within two hours of diving operations at all times – NOPSEMA Inspector satisfied on reasonable grounds that an activity may occur at the facility that, if it occurred, would involve an immediate threat to the health or safety of a person – saturation diving without hyperbaric boat rescue capability at location for a period of 48 hours – application to Commission made on grounds of legal error and whether reasonable grounds for satisfaction – whether prohibition notice reasonably necessary – requirement that satisfaction be based on reasonable grounds requires an objective assessment of all relevant circumstances – Commission found that PN 614 was not based on satisfaction on reasonable grounds, that the separation of the Wellservicer and HSRV for 48 hours would involve an immediate threat to the health or safety of a person – issue of prohibition notice not based on satisfaction on reasonable grounds that it was reasonably necessary to issue the notice in order to remove the threat – appeal allowed – prohibition notice revoked. Technip Oceania P/L v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority t/a NOPSEMA
…
