On 11 December 2024, a construction company was sentenced in the Maryborough Magistrates Court for breaching section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with their primary health and safety duty.

On 6 May 2022 an incident occurred at a worksite in Maryborough which involved a crane. A worker from the defendant company was operating the crane and lifting a steel beam. The worker fully extended the boom, which caused two blocking, and the hoist rope to snap. The beam fell onto another worker’s head causing serious injuries to him. The injured worker was taken to hospital where he received treatment for a laceration to his head.

The investigation found that the crane was not fitted with an anti-two blocking limiting device which would have prevented the incident from occurring.

The defendant’s failures can be identified in four parts (1) they supplied the crane for use at the workplace without an anti-two block limiting device, (2) they did not ensure that the worker conducted an adequate pre-start safety check, (3) they did not identify that Mr Saal dud not possess the appropriate licence, and (4) they did not ensure that workers entered the exclusion zone during operation of the crane.

In sentencing the defendant, Magistrate Milburn made reference to the other duty holders who had been sentenced in this matter and the fine of $85,000 for the defendant company. His Honour compared the liability of the defendant in this matter to the other duty holders and made the determination that it was slightly less in this case.

His Honour noted that those who work in these industries are afforded the protection to their safety and welfare whilst at work. There is a strong motivation to ensure that general deterrence looms large for any penalty imposed. He considered that substantial steps had been taken by the company to ensure that an incident like this would not happen again. The company is no longer trading, which His Honour noted was relevant to the fine.

His Honour noted that there was a significant degree of foreseeability with respect to the risk, however this can be balanced against the company’s reliance on Australian Crane to conduct the audit of the crane competently, where they were let down.

The company has a prior incident where in 2010 they were fined $40,000. His Honour noted that the length of time since this incident was significant, and did not cause him to increase the fine significantly.

His Honour indicated that he was not going to record a conviction. It is a corporation, one that no longer operates and therefore there is good reason not to record a conviction.

His Honour ordered that the defendant be fined $75,000 plus costs of $750 and $101.40 for filing. The fine was referred to SPER. No conviction was recorded.

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