On 17 April 2024, a heavy vehicle maintenance company (‘the corporate defendant’) and its director (‘the individual defendant’) were sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. Each defendant was sentenced in relation to a breach of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The company failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act and was fined $85,000. The director failed to comply with his duty pursuant to section 27 of the Act and was fined $8,000.

The company had employed the injured worker, since 2011. Since 2017, the injured worker was employed as the workshop foreman.

On 7 May 2021, the injured worker and the individual defendant were working together to install a new differential carrier into a prime mover. To place a new differential carrier in the truck, it had to be done from underneath the truck. The defendant used a forklift to lift the truck from the back and the injured worker slid the differential carrier under the truck.

The brakes had not been applied on the front wheels of the truck. The forklift elevated the rear of the truck approximately 1 metre off the ground. The injured worker was on his knees as he pushed the carrier under the truck.

As the injured worker was underneath the truck, the truck slipped from the forklift and onto the injured worker. The injured worker was able to move himself to the side of the truck before he was pulled out and attended to by the ambulance. The injured worker suffered a traumatic morel-lavallee injury to his left flank, left buttock and left perineum.

Prior to the incident, there were no documented procedures to manage the risk of working underneath trucks. The injured worker did not receive information from the company or the defendant about how to safely work under trucks but relied upon his past knowledge for that task.

The defendants engaged in conduct which exposed the injured worker to a risk of death or serious injury. On the incident date, the individual defendant used a forklift to lift the cab chassis of the prime mover while the injured worker performed work underneath it without:

• Using column lifts;
• Using or ensuring brake application on the prime mover;
• Using safety stands under the chassis of the prime mover.

The defendants failed to ensure that:

• The corporate defendant used a method of lifting the cab chassis of the prime mover that was without risk to the health and safety of workers, including the injured worker;
• The corporate defendant had in place a system to prohibit workers, including the injured worker, from working underneath heavy vehicles if the heavy vehicle was not elevated by column lifts;
• The corporate defendant had in place a system to prohibit workers, including the injured worker, from working underneath heavy vehicles if the heavy vehicle was elevated by a forklift;
• The corporate defendant developed and implemented a safe operating procedure and/or safe work method statement for workers working underneath prime movers and/or other heavy vehicles.

The individual defendant participated in interviews in both his own capacity and on behalf of the corporate defendant. He told investigators that he was stupid as he knew the correct procedure, but they were in a rush on a Friday. He stated that when he and the injured worker worked together, they cut corners.

In sentencing, Magistrate Noud took into account the early pleas of guilty by both defendants.

His Honour indicated that it was clear there were systemic failures and the evidence before the court demonstrates the extensive nature of the breach.

His Honour considered there were obvious serious consequences, the risk was real and serious, the probability of the risk was high, and the risk could have been prevented by implementing a number of minimal steps which were not burdensome.

His Honour took into account the lack of prior convictions for either defendant, the company’s good character, the company’s demonstrated rehabilitation, and the cooperation with authorities including making significant admissions.

His Honour had regard to the comparatives placed before him and was most assisted by the case of Guilfoyle v Wild Breads [2021] QDC 58. His Honour considered the injuries and potential consequences of the risk in the current matter to be more serious than that in Wild Breads.

His Honour noted that general deterrence was of the utmost importance, noted the community interest in ensuring employers comply with their safety requirements. His Honour had regard to the defendant’s capacity to pay a fine.

His Honour imposed fines of $85,000 in relation to the corporate defendant, and $8,000 in relation to the individual defendant. His Honour exercised his discretion to not record convictions.

OWHSP contact: enquiries@owhsp.qld.gov.au