On 10 June 2025, a company was sentenced in the Townsville Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act.

The defendant company was conducting work at an intersection in Middlemount (‘the workplace’).  At the workplace were three workers, namely a loader operator, and the two injured workers.

Also at the workplace was a Caterpillar 950M front end loader with a bucket attachment attached.  The bucket attachment weighed approximately 1,550 kilograms.  The loader had been hired by the defendant from a third-party company and had been delivered in the days before the incident with the bucket attachment already attached.

The defendant had in place a written procedure titled ‘SWMS – traffic management’ which discussed various hazards and controls relating to traffic management.  This document discussed the imposition of exclusion zones, stating that “workers on foot must maintain an appropriate exclusion zone around work zone and operating plant” and “if workers on foot are required to work within exclusion zone, positive communication and line of sight is to be maintained with worker at all times”.

The workers were using the front-end loader to attach a cockerel box to the back of a truck.  The cockerel box was lifted with a chain which was attached at one end to the cockerel box, and at the other end was attached to an attachment point on the bucket.  The two injured workers were assisting the loader operator by guiding the cockerel box into the back of the truck.

Once the cockerel box was in place, the loader operator began reversing the loader and lowering the bucket.  The two injured workers began walking toward the truck as this occurred.  Upon seeing the two injured workers in front of the loader, the loader operator stopped operating the loader.  As the loader stopped, the bucket became dislodged and fell from the loader, striking both of the injured workers.

One injured worker was struck to the back and sustained a red mark.

The second injured worker was located unconscious on the ground.  He sustained a traumatic brain injury.  An assessment was conducted of his functioning and prognosis following his injury which concluded that he was unable to undertake activities of daily living without assistance and 24/7 supervision, and that his condition was permanent.

An inspection of the loader and bucket attachment post-incident revealed that the pin recesses on the bucket attachment were filled with coal debris.  This caused a lack of positive engagement from the pins on the loader, deactivating the safety mechanism which held the bucket to the pins.  The debris buildup in the pin recesses was such that the pins were ineffective in securing the bucket, resulting in the bucket attachment dislodging when the loader was reversed.  The defendant was not charged in relation to any failure to identify or remedy the coal buildup in the pin recesses.

Reasonably practicable measures which the defendant should have implemented to eliminate or minimise the risk include ensuring the implementation of its general documented procedure titled ‘SWMS – traffic management’ to the extent that it prescribed for exclusion zones to be maintained around operating plant, through the provision to workers of adequate training, supervision and periodic compliance audits.

In sentencing, Magistrate McLennan took into account the defendant’s early plea of guilty. 

Her Honour outlined the facts of the matter, noting that while she did not consider that it was foreseeable that the bucket of the loader would fall off, there was a possibility of an accident of some description occurring when using equipment of this nature. 

Her Honour accepted that the defendant was not entirely to blame, making note of the condition of the loader and bucket attachment, as they were provided by the third-party owner of that plant.  Her Honour noted that while the loader operator had conducted pre-start inspection of the loader, the defects with the bucket attachment would not have been apparent to him.  Her Honour maintained, however, that had the exclusion zone been maintained, the incident would not have occurred.

Her Honour had regard to the significant harm to the second injured worker.

Her Honour had regard to the authorities placed before the Court and the submissions of the parties as to penalty.  Her Honour had regard to the principles adopted by Judge Fantin in Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd and Mac Farms Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 20.

Her Honour noted that the defendant had no prior history and accepted that this was not a case in which the defendant had adopted a laissez faire attitude towards safety.

Taking into account the maximum penalty and the matters put before the court, her Honour imposed a fine of $100,000.  Her Honour exercised her discretion to not record a conviction.

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