On 5 May 2022, a roofing company and its director were sentenced in the Southport Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The company pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its primary duty to ensure workers’ health and safety, thereby exposing them to the risk of death or serious injury. The director pleaded guilty to failing to exercise due diligence to ensure the company complied with its duty, thereby resulting in the exposure to risk.

The company conducts a business of roof renovations and repairs. The director is the sole director and shareholder of the company. The company had been engaged by another company (“Company B”) to replace four polycarbonate skylights on the roof of a shed with metal sheeting. The defendant company engaged three subcontractors to attend to the work.

The workers carried out this work without the protection of any measure to eliminate or minimise the risk of falling through the skylights on the roof. The defendant company failed to comply with the duty it owed to the workers because it did not implement a fall prevention device or a fall arrest system. One or both measures were necessary to achieve a safe system of work. Though the director was at the worksite and instructed the workers, he did not ensure the company used resources and processes to implement any suitable measure to minimise the risk of falling from height. The director accordingly failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the company complied with its health and safety duty.

The failures by the company and the director exposed the subcontractors to the risk of serious injury from falling through the skylights on the roof. On 2 December 2019, this risk materialized. A worker stood on a polycarbonate sheet covering one of the skylights. The covering broke and the worker fell approximately 4.8 metres to the ground below. The worker sustained serious physical injuries, including a fractured skull and a brain haemorrhage as well as consequential psychiatric conditions.

Magistrate Howden observed that the risk of death or serious injury in the circumstances was real and foreseeable. His Honour noted that the company and the director had failed to implement any suitable control measure even though the director knew the polycarbonate sheeting overlaying the skylights could break under load.

His Honour took into account the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as matters in mitigation. These included that the defendants had both pleaded guilty and co-operated with the investigation. His Honour accepted the director was remorseful for what occurred. Neither the company nor the director had relevant criminal history. His Honour accepted the workplace safety failures were out of character. Since the incident, the company has improved workplace practices to prevent such failures from occurring again.

Company B which had originally engaged the defendant company to do the roofing work also owed a parallel duty to ensure the workers who were to complete the work were not at risk of death or serious injury from falling through the skylights. Company B’s failure to comply with the duty also contributed to the workers’ exposure to the risk. Magistrate Howden found that Company B and the defendant company were similarly culpable in their failure to comply with their respective duties to ensure workers’ health and safety. Consequently, his Honour also had regard to the penalty imposed on Company B in determining the appropriate penalty to impose on the defendant company in this case.

In all the circumstances, a fine of $50,000 was determined to be the appropriate penalty for the defendant company. The director was fined $10,000. No conviction was recorded.

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