On 5 September 2025, a director of a chemical processing plant (‘the Company’) was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed, as an officer of the Company, to exercise due diligence to ensure that the Company complied with the primary duty of care it owed.

The defendant was one of the executive directors of the Company and at all relevant times held the position of managing director. The Company operated a plant (the Plant) and was engaged in extracting gum or plant turpentine (terpenes) and rosin from wood chips.

On 12 November 2021, the Plant was producing rosin, as it had been for several days beforehand. On that day the whole Plant, including the extractor, was shut down due to the Plant having been reportedly struck by lightning, which resulted in damage to the Plant’s automation control panel. An electrical contractor arrived at the Plant at approximately 5pm to repair the control panel.

At approximately 9.30pm an explosion occurred within the extractor causing extensive damage to the Plant and injury to workers in or near the boiler shed. At the time of the explosion the electrical contractor was working in the control room and suffered serious injuries, including significant burns, facial degloving, skull fracture, extensive craniofacial fractures, permanent loss of sight in right eye and bleeding of brain tissue.

The work being conducted by workers and contractors at the Plant was hazardous as it posed a risk to the health and safety to workers, namely the risk of explosion from ignition of flammable/explosive air vapour mixture of concentrate gum or plant turpentine or terpenes.

The defendant failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the Company complied with the health and safety duty it owed, in that he did not take reasonable steps to ensure the Company had available for use and used appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risk to health and safety from work carried out as part of the business or undertaking at the workplace, specifically:

1. Ensuring a hazard and operability study (HAZOP) by a competent HAZOP facilitator reflective of the current configuration of plant was conducted and implemented.
2. Ensuring a hazardous area classification by a competent classifier reflective of the current configuration of plant was conducted and implemented.
3. Ensuring the chemical stability and reactivity of turpentine and concentrate as extraction solvents was assessed.
4. Ensuring the chemical stability and reactivity of turpentine and concentrate laden wood chips, particularly when in contact with air was assessed.
5. Ensuring a chemical stability and reactivity review was conducted after changes to rosin production were made.
6. Ensuring all contractors and workers were provided with information regarding hazardous area classification.

The defendant’s failure to comply with his duty exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury or illness.

Magistrate Kelly, in sentencing the defendant, had regard to the submissions made by the parties and to the maximum penalty for the offending. Her Honour found that the risk in this matter was obvious and that the potential consequences were catastrophic. Her Honour considered that the objective seriousness fell in the middle-to-high range.

Her Honour had regard to the serious injuries suffered by the electrical contractor and the enduring impact the injuries have had on his life. Her Honour also noted the injuries suffered by the other three workers. Her Honour remarked that general deterrence was an important sentencing consideration.

In mitigation, Magistrate Kelly took into account the defendant’s timely plea of guilty as an indication of remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. Her Honour also had regard to the defendant’s lack of prior convictions and unblemished safety record. Having regard to all matters, as well as the comparable decisions referred to by the parties, Magistrate Kelly convicted and fined the defendant $50,000 and exercised her discretion not to record a conviction.

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