On 14 August 2026 a Bundaberg based manufacturing business was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its health and safety duty.

The court heard the business undertook manufacture of various roofing components for housing construction including metal fabrication. In carrying out its business it owned and operated various items of machinery including a roll-form machine. This machine fabricated metal roof battens from blank sheet metal. The machine operated in automatic mode though was inadequately guarded and in March 2025 a worker sustained a strike injury to her hand when accessing an area of the machine where the formed roof battens were ejected. The worker sustained severed tendons and a laceration to her hand though made a recovery and resumed work duties with the company.

Investigations undertaken by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland revealed the worker was relatively new, having been employed for approximately 4 ½ months. The worker had received verbal instructions in how to operate the machine and, as part of her duties, an instruction to tighten, periodically, several securing lock nuts on the machine which would work loose during its operation. Whilst the worker had received an instruction not to access the machine whilst it was operating, the worker accessed the area to tension the nuts whilst leaving the machine operating. After the incident the company installed perimeter guarding around the machine to restrict access to the moving parts.

In sentencing the company his Honour took in to account it was to be sentenced on the basis of the offending occurring during the entire period of her employment operating the machine whilst it was inadequately guarded. His Honour acknowledged the company had provided instruction to the worker though accepted prosecution submissions this was the lowest order of control and it was required to implement, in this instance, guarding to restrict access. His Honour observed the risk was significant and resulted in severe injury to the worker and the steps to address the risk from the hazard were well known and easily implemented. His Honour rejected defence submissions the objective gravity was at the lower end of the scale. His Honour considered the cases referred to by the parties as they outlined the sentencing principles, accepting the beginning point are those matters outlined in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

His Honour specifically noted that the cases revealed that in matters of this type, general deterrence was of particular importance. In mitigation his Honour noted the expression of remorse in the directors affidavit, the company had no previous convictions, had co-operated in the investigation and there had been a timely plea of guilty. He accepted, from the defence material, the company was a model corporate citizen which had demonstrated its generous and ongoing support for various clubs and community activities. He imposed the penalty as noted above and declined to record a conviction, relying on his earlier observations as to the company’s antecedents.   

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