On 16 December 2025, a manufacturing and fabrication company was sentenced in the Bundaberg 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.

The incident occurred on 18 July 2022 at a warehouse facility in the Bundaberg region. Two of the workers, a licensed forklift driver and boilermaker who had been employed for four years, and a 19-year-old labourer, with no experience in lifting or lifting equipment and in his fifth week of work, were involved in the incident.

On 17 July 2022, a delivery of steel was made to the driveway of the workplace and offloaded onto the ground. The delivery consisted of three bundles of steel, one of which held 12 lengths of 65 x 65 x 8000mm box steel, secured with steel straps and weighing approximately 970 kilograms.

The following day, on 18 July 2022, the labourer and the forklift driver commenced the task of moving the bundles of steel from the delivery point to a rack at the rear of the premises. No toolbox talk or ‘pre-start’ meeting was held.

The task was hazardous in that it posed a risk to the health and safety of workers, namely the possibility of death or serious injury as a result of being struck by fallings objects / materials, while they were being moved with the forklift.

The forklift driver originally attempted to move the steel with the forklift tines, but it kept getting stuck. Accordingly, he decided to change the work method by using a jib attachment to the forklift to sling the load across the driveway. He installed the jib and secured it to the forklift. He had not been shown how to do this or received any training on it.

Both workers successfully moved two of the three bundles of steel, with the forklift driver using a single-fibre lifting sling ‘choked’ around the bundle and slightly off centre to the mid-point along the length. The other end of the sling was attached to the lifting hook which was attached to the jib attachment via a bow shackle. As the sling was around the middle of the load, it ‘see-sawed’ when the forklift was in operation. Accordingly, while the forklift driver drove the forklift, the labourer walked beside it, stabilising the load with his hand.

They were in the process of moving the third bundle of steel (8 metres long) when the labourer stumbled on the driveway and fell to the ground. The load ‘see-sawed’, the right end of it struck the ground, the bow shackle failed, and the approximately 970-kilogram load fell onto the labourer’s legs. He was transported by ambulance to the Bundaberg Hospital, then transferred (by helicopter) to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. He suffered major and multiple bilateral leg and ankle fractures, together with nerve damage, and required multiple surgeries. He spent over three weeks in hospital and rehabilitation before being discharged home, where he was wheelchair bound for at least six months and requires ongoing physiotherapy and occupational therapy.

The company notified OIR of the incident and inspectors attended and commenced an investigation.

The sole director participated in a recorded interview with investigators on 23 November 2022, and the made the following statements:

• Prior to the incident nothing was documented;
• An incident review, conducted by a WHS consultant he engaged, found that the uneven driveway was a contributing factor, and the shackle coming away from the jib attachment. The ground surface had been raised as an issue before, and he had previously obtained a quote of around $10,000 but did not think he had to improve someone else’s property. This had not yet been resolved;
• He accepted that there were no systems in place or instructions on how to use the jib attachment, nor an inspection regime;
• There was no documented risk assessment procedure but, rather, he used judgement to ensure risks were eliminated or minimised;
• There was no written instructions or procedure for doing the relevant task, but he knew it was common practice for workers to move loads in this sort of manner; and
• At the time, there were no processes in place to consult with or discuss safety issues with workers.

Shortly after the incident, and in response to the Improvement Notices, the company undertook a comprehensive review of the worksite and processes, and implemented a number of measures to mitigate the risk, including:

• Completing risk assessments on all operations, including drafting Safe Work Method Statements
• Engaging a WHS consultant to assist with drafting of further WHS documents and other safety improvements (at a cost of $6,600);
• Introducing policies and procedures, including creating a new Safe Operating Procedure titled ‘Forklift’, which includes a number of pre-operational safety checks and lists potential hazards, including uneven surfaces and using forklift with lifting jib;
• Testing and tagging all equipment;
• Drafting and implementing a lifting checklist;
• Creating a Height/Lifting Safety Inspection Registry;
• Re-inducting all workers, including providing training, and assessing worker competency on the forklift and use of the jib attachment;
• Implementing pre-start meetings;
• Implementing documented reporting systems; and
• Introducing a safety noticeboard at the worksite.

In sentencing the defendant, the Magistrate found that the gravity of the offending was in permitting an inexperienced worker in a ‘danger zone’ where he might well be injured if the equipment failed.

His Honour had regard to the Victim Impact Statement of the injured person and the long-term impact on him.

In mitigation, his Honour took into account the defendant’s timely plea of guilty and that it was a good corporate citizen with no prior convictions. He considered the exposure to the injured worker to be ‘moderate’ over a relatively short distance.

His Honour had regard to the decision of Nicholson v GCMR Project Services Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 242 (‘GCMR’) and considered the starting point to be $100,000. However, he found this matter to be ‘somewhat less serious’. He considered that the risk of injury from falling through a skylight (as was the case in GCMR) was ‘inevitable’ whereas if a load were to fall from a forklift, it was ‘not a situation where injury was inevitable‘ and ‘it may have been avoided’.

He fined the defendant $65,000 and ordered costs of $1,500 (professional costs) and $101.40 (filing cost).

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