On 16 August 2024 a sole trader roofing contractor was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates court for three contraventions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. He was sentenced for two category 3 breaches relating to his failure to comply with his work health and safety duties and a further offence of failing to comply with an enforcement notice issued to him as a result of his roofing works.

His offending relating to roofing repair and painting works on a domestic dwelling at Oxley Road, Sherwood, that was built in the 1940s. Its roof was constructed of corrugated asbestos cement sheeting, commonly known as a ‘standard’.

In September 2020, the owner of the property posted an advertisement to the Oneflare website. Oneflare is an Australian online marketplace that connected customers and businesses by matching customer job requests with quotes from local businesses. The post stated:

‘Type of roof: fibro cement sheeting; Type of building: single-level home; Approximate size of roof: 50 – 100 square metres; Description: Looking for someone to conduct leak check / maintenance on the roof. Some screws / nails have popped and needs re-screwing. Not looking for full restoration or replacement.’

The defendant responded to the Oneflare instant messaging application. The defendant undertook the work which was completed on 25 September 2020.

On 4 February 2022, the homeowner reconnected with the defendant through the Oneflare app asking the defendant if he was still working with roofs, saying:

‘I need to get the roof sealed on my house at Sherwood. You did some work on it in 2020 but it’s started leaking again. I was wondering if you could give me a price on sealing / painting it. The problem area seems to be the old asbestos sheeting.’

The defendant replied quoting approximately $2,900 to do the work.

Specifically, in regard to the ACM roof, the homeowner said to the defendant: 

‘You may remember that the main roof of the house is the Asbestos cement sheeting so from what I’m reading won’t be able to be jet washed. Would you have something like the Crommelin sealer (or similar) and then a topcoat. I’m sure you would have a plan for that sort of roof. Can that be factoring (sic) into the quote?’ 

Further texts and discussion occurred, and it was agreed that the defendant and the homeowner would meet onsite on 14 March 2022 to discuss the planned works.

On 21 March 2022, workers arrived on site with initial work over the ensuing two days entailing hammering roof nails into the roof sheeting. On 23 March 2022, workers arrived and accessed the roof with a worker commencing to use a high-pressure water spray to clean the roof.

Debris from the roof cleaning began impacting the property being maintained as well as both adjacent properties. A neighbour contacted the homeowner who attended and directed the defendant to stop the high pressure cleaning. The defendant packed up his equipment and he and the workers left the site.

A complaint was made to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (‘WHSQ’).

Inspectors attended the site and commenced investigations including photographing and taking samples of debris from the three affected properties. These samples were later tested and found to contain asbestos particles.

Inspectors repeatedly attempted to contact the defendant to further their investigations though these were hampered by a lack of engagement by the defendant who variously stated he did not undertake the work; that the work was carried out by another person; that the work was carried out as a favour to the homeowner; that the business was deregistered as the defendant had suffered an arm injury a year before and that the homeowner had not mentioned the roof contained asbestos.

Enforcement notices were issued to the defendant in respect to his work which included a requirement that asbestos remediation work of the contamination be undertaken. An inspection by inspectors on 13 April 2022 ascertained that no remediation or removal works had been completed.

WHSQ later engaged a class A licensed asbestos removalist, to conduct the full removal and remediation of asbestos from the affected addresses.

In sentencing the Magistrate outlined the nature of the offending, noting the maximum penalties that may be imposed reflected the seriousness of the offending. He acknowledged the defendant did not have any trade qualifications for this type of work (or at all) and that his undertaking was unsophisticated.

His Honour considered the offending was aggravated as the defendant had been told the roof was asbestos containing material (ACM) before he had accepted the work describing the defendant’s conduct as cavalier and reckless. His Honour observed that it is well known the terrible dangers of exposure to this type of material. His Honour stated that it was ‘highly reckless’ conduct by the defendant in engaging in this work in the manner he did without any controls in place and that there was a substantial risk from this exposure to the members of the public (home residents).

In sentencing his Honour took in to account the legislative scheme of the WHS Act as well as the Penalties and Sentences Act principles.

His Honour accepted that the defendant had entered a timely plea of guilty, had no previous convictions and was otherwise of good character. His Honour took in to account the very straitened financial circumstances of the defendant. In sentencing the defendant his Honour took in to account the impact statements from all affected homeowners which clearly set out the damage the defendant had caused to these persons. His Honour took in to account the significant costs of remediation. Taking all these matters in to account his Honour fined the defendant $10,000 and declined to record a conviction.

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