On 13 March 2026, a small construction business (‘the Defendant’) was sentenced in the Brisbane 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 charge arose from an incident which occurred on 25 November 2024 at a workplace at Alderley. The Defendant engaged in domestic construction and remedial, rectification and maintenance work. At the time of the incident, the Defendant was engaged to replace the balustrading for seven units which consisted of a total of 11 balconies. It engaged workers, including a labourer and a carpenter.

At approximately 7:30am, the labourer and carpenter arrived at the workplace. They were tasked with replacing the balustrades on seven units. Three of the units were located on the second floor, all of which were at a height of more than two metres from the ground (‘the Hazard’).

The Defendant had a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for the Workplace. The SWMS identified ‘fall from height’ as ‘high risk’ and Part 2 of the SWMS listed ‘Job Steps’ and the required hazard control measures such as certified scaffolding or edge protection or fall arrest harness.

The director of the Defendant had a ‘toolbox’ discussion with the labourer and the carpenter on the morning of the incident. They discussed the risk of falling from heights and the need for edge protection. The director made the decision to order a single bay scaffold system for the purpose of edge protection. However, it would not arrive at the workplace until later that day. There was no further discussion about site safety.

At approximately 9:30am, the carpenter was on the balcony of Unit 7 loosening bolts on the handrails when the labourer joined him and commenced removing the side balustrade. The labourer was attempting to remove a bolt from the guard rail with a hammer when the rail came loose and he fell from the balcony and landed on the pavement below, a distance of approximately 4.38 metres.

He lost consciousness for approximately 7 minutes. He was subsequently transported by ambulance to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and treated for a traumatic subdural haemorrhage (brain bleed between the brain and the outermost covering of the brain), fractured skull, collapsed lung, multiple fractures of the forearm, wrist fractures, abdominal contusions, hip abrasions, and facial abrasions. He was discharged from hospital seven days later.

The failure to comply with the duty exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury.

In sentencing the Defendant, his Honour Magistrate Whitbread considered the nature and seriousness of the offence and took into account the importance of general deterrence as well as the maximum penalty. His Honour also took into account the impact on the injured worker and said, ‘it would have been horrific’, affecting him physically, financially and mentally.

His Honour considered the recent authority of Nicholson v GCMR Project Services Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 24. He considered the facts in that matter to be more serious, placing this matter in a less serious category.

In mitigation, his Honour considered the following to be relevant –

• The early plea of guilty demonstrated remorse.
• The Defendant’s co-operation assisted with the administration of justice.
• It was a first offender with an ‘unblemished’ record.
• This was not a matter where there was a complete failure to identify the risks.
• That distinguished it from other cases where the risk was not identified.
• The Defendant had prepared a SWMS and had put in place arrangements to ensure the work was carried out safety by ordering the scaffolding but it ‘did not make it explicitly clear that work was not to start before the scaffolding was in place’.
• The workers were informed of the risks and safety measures were ordered. That does not shift blame to the workers, but it was relevant to the seriousness of the breach.
• The Defendant had taken a number of steps to improve safety following the incident.
• It was commendable that the Defendant continued to pay the injured worker until his workers’ compensation was in effect, that regular contact was maintained with him, and he was supported in that period

Given all of those circumstances, his Honour considered the appropriate penalty to be $60,000. No conviction was recorded.

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