On 30 January 2025, a company was sentenced in the Gympie Magistrates Court for breaching section 40C of the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) (‘the Act’) for failing to comply with its duty under section 30 of the Act to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that its business or undertaking was conducted in a way that was electrically safe. 

The defendant was engaged to install a shed at a property located at Curra. An overhead electric transmission line passed over the premises at a height of 7.8 metres.

The voltage of the powerlines required a 3-metre exclusion zone, inclusive of operating plant. 

Between 23 June 2021 and 28 June 2021, the defendant erected the shed at the premises. During the course of the construction of the shed, workers and/or conductive materials they were holding came within an unsafe distance of the line.

The distance between the shed and the electric line was 1.4 metres, at their closest points. The defendant had been advised by the property owner that the power line was de-energised. However, the line was active and was not de-energised at any time during the course of construction. The shed was erected without incident, and no injuries were suffered by the workers.

In October 2021, after the defendant had erected the shed, the property owner engaged a roofer to install gutter guarding on the shed. After accessing the roof of the shed, the roofer received an electric shock from contacting, or by being near the electric line, which resulted in serious electrical burns.

It was alleged that there were several control measures that ought to have been implemented to eliminate or minimise the risk. These included conducting a risk assessment to determine whether the shed would come within an unsafe distance of the electric line, obtaining written confirmation from Ergon Energy Corporation Limited that the electric line was de-energised before commencing the work, not commencing the work prior to the electric line being de-energised, and not erecting the shed within an unsafe distance of the electric line.

By failing to ensure the workplace was electrically safe, the defendant exposed workers to the risk of death or serious injury.

Magistrate Hughes, in sentencing the defendant, had regard to the maximum penalty for the offences and noted that general deterrence was an important sentencing consideration. His Honour further had regard to the need to denounce the defendant’s conduct and protect the community.

His Honour remarked that electricity is inherently dangerous and that the potential consequences can be catastrophic. His Honour had regard to the serious injuries suffered by the roofing worker.

His Honour remarked that the defendant’s duty was not obviated by the failings of other potential duty holders, but that the conduct of other parties was relevant to an assessment of the probability of the risk. His Honour noted that the defendant had been informed that the line was de-energised and that the concrete footings for the structure were poured prior to the defendant’s involvement at the worksite.

His Honour had regard to the defendant’s lack of prior convictions for safety related offending and concluded that a personally deterrent sentence was not necessary in this matter. His Honour noted that the defendant was a small business with modest means, had reformed its safety practices post incident, and was the sponsor of community organisations.

Having regard to all matters, as well as the comparable decisions referred to by the parties, Magistrate Hughes convicted and fined the defendant $80,000 and exercised his discretion not to record a conviction.

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