On 7 November 2025, a company in the business of steel fabrication and manufacturing was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching section 40D of the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its electrical safety duty pursuant to section 30 of the Act.

The defendant operated a business which had been engaged to conduct work at a workplace in Bromelton (‘the workplace’). The defendant was conducting work to connect an existing wastewater tank to a new tank through the installation of pipes and support posts.

Seven support posts had been installed between the two tanks, which would ultimately hold the pipe connecting the tanks. The path of the support posts crossed underneath overhead powerlines. The powerlines were located between the fourth and fifth powerlines. The fourth support post was 3.185 metres tall, the fifth support post was 2.3 metres tall, and the overhead powerlines were 11 metres above the ground below. The defendant hired an elevated work platform (‘EWP’) which was used to access the taller support posts.

The defendant engaged the deceased, through the deceased’s business, as a subcontractor. The deceased was conducting work at the workplace on 25 November 2022. The deceased was conducting welding work on the support posts, using the EWP to access the taller support posts. He had been offered the assistance of an apprentice/a second person, which he declined.

While the deceased was working, the EWP either made contact with, or came in close proximity to, the overhead powerlines, causing an electric arc flash to initiate. Other workers attended the location to assist, emergency services were called, and the deceased was transported to hospital for treatment. The deceased sustained burns to 75% of his body and ultimately passed away on 1 December 2022.

It is not alleged that the failures by the defendant exposed the deceased to the risk, nor caused the injuries or ultimate death of the deceased.

The defendant failed to comply with its duty to ensure its business was conducted in a way which was electrically safe. Measures the defendant should have reasonably taken include:

• Ensuring that no person, including the deceased, came within an unsafe distance of an overhead power line (‘the exclusion zone’) in compliance with section 68 and Schedule 2 Part 2 of the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 and Chapter 3 of the Electrical Safety Code of Practice 2010 – Working Near Overhead and Underground Electric Lines;
• Ensuring a worker acting as a spotter or safety observer was engaged to observe and ensure the exclusion zone was maintained while the work was being conducted.

In sentencing, Magistrate Schofield took into account the defendant’s early plea of guilty and lack of prior history.

His Honour had regard to the factual circumstances of the matter and the maximum penalty for the charge. His Honour had regard to the submissions placed before him by each of the parties.

His Honour noted the genuine remorse expressed by the director of the defendant. His Honour noted the matters outlined in the affidavit under the hand of the director, which was placed before the court, which discussed matters including the defendant’s lack of criminal history, the culture of the company, and the active role it has in supporting the community.

His Honour indicated that the starting point was a fine in the order of $100,000, however, when taking into account all matters and balancing the mitigating features and the contents of the director’s affidavit against section 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, a significant reduction in liability was called for.

Taking into account all matters, his Honour imposed a fine of $25,000. His Honour exercised his discretion to not record a conviction.

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