On 21 November 2025, a metal fabrication and welding company was sentenced in the Mackay 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.

In the defendant’s workplace yard at Paget was an aluminium racking structure made from welded off-cuts, with no load-limit markings and never assessed for safe load capacity.

On 15 June 2023, workers were instructed to tidy the yard by moving approximately 19 steel mesh sheets. Each sheet measured approximately 3 metres by 2.5 metres and weighed 24.1kg each. The Workshop Supervisor agreed with the Leading Hand to use the makeshift racking for storage.

Workers inserted long scaffolding pipes into the racking posts to extend their height and used a forklift to lift multiple sheets at a time onto the structure. The injured worker, a 16-year-old apprentice, was directed to hold the sheets in place, so they did not bow.

After all sheets were loaded and the forklift moved away, three arms on one side of the racking suddenly failed, causing the stacked sheets to fall and crush the injured worker. He sustained significant injuries including a fractured pelvis, ruptured spleen, orbital fracture, and bowel and bladder contusion. He was placed in an induced coma and required surgery and lengthy hospitalisation.

A metallurgical inspection later found that the racking was structurally inappropriate for the weight of the sheets, had poor-quality welds, and had been weakened further by the improvised pipe extensions.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (‘WHSQ’) commenced an investigation and issued prohibition and improvement notices the following day. The defendant subsequently implemented engineer-certified racking, load-limit markings, updated SWMS procedures, toolbox talks, and process controls.

Reasonably practicable control measures that should have been implemented to eliminate or minimise the risk include ensuring that any racking was properly assessed by a competent person and subject to a risk assessment before use, had clear markings displaying its working load limits, and was supported by a safe work procedure outlining correct use and load restrictions. Workers should also have been instructed and trained in that safe work procedure.

In sentencing, Magistrate Shillito took into account the early plea of guilty and accepted that the plea of guilty was a demonstration of remorse for the offending and acceptance of responsibility. His Honour had regard to the circumstances of the offending and that the defendant’s health and safety duty was non- delegable.

His Honour considered the injured worker’s Victim Impact Statement.

His Honour had regard to the post incident measures implemented by the defendant, including those implemented in response to notices issued to the defendant.

His Honour had regard to the comparative cases placed before the Court, the submissions made by both parties and the maximum penalty for the offence.

His Honour imposed a fine of $80,000. His Honour exercised his discretion to not record a conviction.

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