Introduction
Recent cases have demonstrated that employers are required to take significant steps to comply with their health and safety duties and that there are steep consequences for failing to comply with these safety duties.
Employer failed to comply with safety duty despite comprehensive safety systems
In B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Nicholson [2026] QDC 5, the District Court of Queensland found that, despite having comprehensive safety systems and policies in place, an employer contravened their primary work health and safety duty when a safety incident resulted in an injury to a worker.
The employer was carrying out construction works involving heavy machinery to lay down materials. One worker operated the machinery while several others assisted with laying down materials on the ground nearby (Machinery Task).
As a result of a miscommunication between the machinery operator and a worker, the machinery ran over a worker’s ankle. This caused a 15-centimetre laceration to the injured worker’s calf, which required sutures to heal.
At first instance, the Magistrates Court found that the employer failed to comply with its primary work health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). The employer appealed this decision to the District Court, arguing that it had complied with its work health and safety duty and that it implemented all reasonably practicable control measures in the circumstances.
At the time of the incident, the employer had a comprehensive system of control measures and policies addressing hazards. The employer was aware of the risks associated with the Machinery Task and had developed a work method statement that identified control measures for performing it.
The employer also trained its workers on its safety measures three months prior to the incident. This included training on control measures to deal with the particular hazards of the Machinery Task.
The District Court acknowledged that the employer paid comprehensive attention to its safety systems and the training provided to workers. However, the employer failed to implement all of the reasonably practicable control measures in the circumstances.
Specifically, despite identifying that the use of a supervisor or spotter was a practicable measure to control the risks, the employer did not implement this measure on the day of the incident. The District Court held that it would have been reasonable for a supervisor or spotter to have been present while the Machinery Task was undertaken and that there were employees available to undertake this role. As the incident arose due to a miscommunication, the use of a supervisor or spotter likely would have averted the incident.
Although the workers had been trained on the performance of the Machinery Task, including using supervisors or spotters, they failed to follow this training on the busy day of this incident. The District Court stated that an employer must consider that their workers may not follow their training when ensuring a safe workplace.
On this basis, the District Court upheld the finding that the employer breached its primary work health and safety duty. In the first instance, the Magistrates Court made an order for a $100,000 penalty. However, this may be subject to change following this appeal.
$920,000 in compensation for injured worker
In Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 259, a worker received approximately $920,000 in compensation from his employer and host employer after sustaining a back injury at work.
The employee was employed by a labour hire company and was working at a factory for a host employer. The employee was moving a heavy piece of equipment with a co-worker when the equipment came off its rails and fell forward. This caused the employee to jolt forward with the equipment.
The employee immediately felt pain in his back and was later diagnosed with a disc protrusion in his spine that required surgery. However, even after the surgery, the employee was unable to return to his previous position. The medical evidence suggested that the employee would only be able to return to light- to medium-duty work.
The Court found that both the employee’s direct employer and the host employer were liable for the employee’s injury.
The Court also found that the risk of the equipment falling off the rails was apparent and that there was no safe system of work in place to address this risk. There were obvious ways of controlling the risk of the equipment coming off its rails, including using a fixture device and providing detailed training and ongoing supervision in the use of the equipment.
The employer should also have conducted continuing inspections of the host employer’s workplace to ensure that the factory operator was providing a safe environment with adequate training and safe equipment.
While there was significant evidence that the employee was able to continue with many activities, including taking 11 overseas holidays and going to the gym 5-6 times a week, the Court still found that the employee suffered from an impairment due to his injury.
The employee received an order for compensation for approximately $920,000, including amounts for economic loss and damages. This amount was split between both the employer and host employer.
Lessons for employers
Employers should take an opportunity to review their safety systems to ensure that they are suitable and control all hazards in their workplaces. Some good questions to ask are:
- Have I done a recent walk through of the workplace to identify the current hazards?
- Do my safety systems still appropriately control the hazards in my workplace?
- Is there adequate supervision of my staff?
- Are the safety systems that are in my SWMS and training being implemented and followed on site?
- Do I need to provide refresher training to workers on my safety systems?
- Do my safety systems also address the psychosocial hazards in my workplace?
- Do I need to implement a sexual harassment prevention plan?
If you need assistance with any of the issues raised in this article, please contact a member of our workplace relations and safety team.
