Disclaimer: Reports are provided as a summary only. They are not a verbatim account of the court proceedings and do not contain all details placed before the court. They are not intended to be used as a record of the court proceedings.

On 19 May 2026, a family-run farming company was sentenced in the Goondiwindi 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 defendant operates a business in livestock and farming. It has been in business for 50 years in a regional area of Queensland. It is a family run business and employs locally.

On 2 April 2024, two workers were riding quad bikes without helmets. They were mustering a herd of 55 cattle. Both were experienced workers. A cow charged at one of the workers causing the quad bike to tip. The worker died two days later of polytrauma. He did not sustain any fatal head injuries.

On 22 March 2024, the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) (‘the WHS Regulation’) was amended to include s226A, specifically addressing quad bikes at the workplace and mandating the wearing of helmets.

The defendant did not supply or require workers to wear helmets. The defendant was unaware of the recent legislative amendment. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching its duty by not ensuring that:

  1. helmets were made available to the workers
  2. the workers were instructed to wear helmets for the work activity; and
  3. a safe work procedure for the work activity mandating the wearing of helmets was developed and implemented.

The breach was not alleged to have resulted in the worker’s death. The gravamen of the offending was the exposure to the risk of riding quad bikes at the workplace.

Magistrate Crawford considered the most important factors was the obviousness of the risks of riding quad bikes at work; and that supplying helmets was not complex or burdensome. Despite the breach not resulting in harm, her Honour considered it a significant failure and not a difficult duty to meet.

Her Honour had regard for the penalty imposed to reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

In mitigation, her Honour accepted the defendant is a small company in the high-risk agriculture sector with no history of safety breaches. It is a company of good character and contributes to the local community. The company immediately rectified the breach and went beyond by fitting quad bikes with roll cages and providing additional training to all workers. Her Honour had regard for the impact a significant fine would have on the defendant.

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

Court Report

General
Industry
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Date of offence
Injury
Nil
Court
Goondiwindi Magistrates Court
Magistrate or judge
Magistrate Crawford
Decision date
Company
Legislation

Sections 19(1) and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Plea
Guilty
Penalty
$80,000
Maximum fine available
$1,500,000
Professional and legal costs
$1,500
Court costs
$115.50
In default period
N/A
Time to pay
Referred to SPER
Conviction recorded
No