University of the West Indies v Occupational Safety and Health Authority and Agency (Trinidad and Tobago)

For prosecutions under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the six-month limit in section 93 applies to both summary offences and safety and health offences. The word “complaint” has its ordinary meaning and is not confined to summary proceedings. Section 97B’s two-year limit applies to civil proceedings founded on a cause of action, including redress proceedings under section 83A. Differences in the Industrial Court’s procedure, evidential rules and sentencing powers do not make safety and health prosecutions non-criminal. Potential anomalies and settled practice cannot justify a different construction where the statutory language and scheme are clear.

The Authority prosecuted the University in the Industrial Court for failing to report a workplace accident within the period required by section 46A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Industrial Court rejected the limitation objection, holding that section 97B’s two-year period governed safety and health offences: No 162 of 2017. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 93’s six-month period applied and that section 97B concerned civil proceedings: Civil Appeal P295 of 2019. The Authority appealed to the Privy Council, relying on the statutory scheme, alleged anomalies and settled practice. The central issue was which limitation provision governed a prosecution for a safety and health offence.

The Board dismissed the appeal.

1. Statutory interpretation. The meaning of statutory words must be ascertained in the context and purpose of the provision, read in the context of the Act as a whole and its historical setting. The Board adopted the approach stated in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 AC 687. The presumption against absurdity was recognised, but the Board did not need to decide the wider relevance of settled practice. If relevant, settled practice may at most evidence that the statutory words can bear the settled meaning and that the meaning is workable in practice.
2. Nature and jurisdiction of offences. Section 83(1) is a default provision. Unless an offence is specified as a summary offence, it is a safety and health offence within the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction under section 97A. Both categories remain criminal offences. The distinction in section 4 concerns the forum, not the character of the proceedings. Differences in procedure, evidence and sentencing powers do not alter that conclusion. Sections 82A and 83(2) and (3) also apply without distinction to both categories.
3. Meaning of “complaint”. “Complaint” is an ordinary English word. Sections 80 and 91(1) use it without confining it to summary proceedings under the Summary Courts Act. Section 93 therefore imposes a six-month limit on prosecutions for all criminal offences under the Act, including safety and health offences, calculated from the inspector’s knowledge of the alleged commission.
4. Section 97B and redress proceedings. The reference in section 97B to a “cause of action” more naturally concerns civil proceedings, including proceedings for redress under section 83A. Although an application under section 83A may engage the Industrial Court’s criminal jurisdiction and permit a penalty, it is not itself criminal or hybrid proceedings. Section 97B consequently does not apply to prosecutions.
5. Potential anomalies arising from section 83A and section 91(2) were insufficient to displace the clear statutory scheme. The settled practice relied on by the Authority could not alter that conclusion. All criminal proceedings must be commenced within six months; civil proceedings under section 83A must be brought within two years. The appeal was dismissed.

• Privy Council. The appeal was dismissed. The Board held that section 93 governed prosecutions for safety and health offences.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. The Court reversed the Industrial Court, holding that the six-month limit in section 93 applied and that section 97B concerned civil proceedings: Civil Appeal P295 of 2019.
• Industrial Court. The Court rejected the preliminary limitation objection and held that the two-year limit in section 97B applied to safety and health offences: No 162 of 2017.