On 31 July 2025, a water tube boiler company (‘the first defendant’), its director (‘the second defendant’), and worker (‘the third defendant’) were sentenced in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’).

The charge arose from an incident which occurred on 26 June 2023 at a workplace in Bundaberg. The PCBU was engaged to supply and install an industrial steam boiler at the premises. The Boiler Room was an enclosed concrete-walled room attached to the main building. Approximately three weeks prior to the incident, the PCBU sent two workers, a qualified boilermaker and a labourer to attend the site and fit out the boiler room. They did not complete the job and returned on 26 June 2023 to finish the job.

On the same date, the third defendant, a qualified gas technician engaged by the PCBU, attended the facility to commission the boiler. He was accompanied by his father, who acted as his assistant. The process involved ensuring the boiler’s safety mechanisms and other critical operational features functioned correctly before feeding fuel into the burner and igniting it to produce steam. Ordinarily, this process would take several hours.

Prior to commencing the process, the third defendant learned that the boiler was not ready for commissioning – there was no water feeding into the tank and the LPG supply line had not been purged of non-combustible gas. The third defendant contacted the director of the PCBU, the second defendant, to inform him of the issues. The second defendant instructed him to do the purge and charge the principal contractor for it.

Neither the first defendant nor the third defendant had a documented procedure for purging larger volumes of gas. There was no specific training in relation to the task and there was no risk assessment or safe work method undertaken.

The third defendant commenced the procedure to purge the boiler. He arranged with BBD for the bulk supply valve to be opened, introducing pressurised LPG into the main supply line. He could not purge through the boiler due to the unavailability of feedwater, so he utilised an air compressor hose that he found nearby. He realised that conducting the purge in this manner would take days, not hours. To expedite the process, he opened the primary gas isolation valve on the ‘gas train’ and vented the pressurised gas from the supply line through the open filter housing, directly into the atmosphere of the enclosed boiler room. Sometime after releasing the gas, the gas detector alarmed, indicating that the supply line was now charged with LPG.

While this process was underway, the third defendant’s father was positioned near the boiler. The labourer was on top of the boiler installing insulating material around pipework and the boilermaker was assembling pipework for the feedwater tank. It became necessary to braze a single copper elbow onto a length of pipe. At this point, the labourer came down from the boiler roof to retrieve a tool from the truck. The boilermaker lit his oxy-acetylene torch and ignited the LPG. All four workers were engulfed in flames.

The third defendant, the boilermaker and the labourer all received full thickness burns. The third defendant’s father received minor thermal burns. Both the boilermaker and the labourer were subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The labourer was also diagnosed with a major depressive disorder.

Following the incident, the defendant updated its SWMS for the boiler commissioning process, created a document for the pre-commissioning testing, and engaged a Work Health and Safety officer.

In sentencing the defendants, the Magistrate took into account that the risk was real and present and that it materialised. His Honour had regard to the Victim Impact Statements of two of the injured workers and the serious nature of the offence.

In mitigation, his Honour took into account the very early plea of guilty, co-operation with the investigation, and lack of any previous history.

With respect to the worker, he also had regard to the ongoing consequences for him and the extra-curial punishment he suffered with his burn injuries.

His Honour considered various authorities, and, in all of the circumstances, given the serious nature of the breach, he convicted and fined –

1. The PCBU – $100,000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.
2. The director – $22,000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.
3. The worker – $9,000 plus costs of $500 and $105.35 for filing.

His Honour exercised his discretion to not record convictions against the defendants.

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