On 18 August 2026 , a small roofing company was sentenced in the Dalby Magistrates Court for breaching section 40C of the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) (‘the Act’), by failing to comply with its primary electrical safety duty.

The defendant was engaged the principal contractor for a residential construction at Rangers Bridge. A 12,700 volt single wire earth return line (SWER) ran across the property. The house was built under the SWER line. The approximate height between the roof and the SWER line was 5.3 metres.

The defendant subcontracted the roofing works to a roofing company. The defendant advised the subcontractor that Ergon Energy wanted to have a meeting before roofing works commenced. The meeting with Ergon Energy did not occur.

On 14 December 2023, the subcontractor was on site for the first time, to install facia gutters and roof battens. While working on the roof, one of the subcontractor’s workers pulled a 6.5 metre long metal roof batten from the ground, straight up and into the SWER line and received an electric shock. He suffered electrical burns to 15% of his total body surface area. As a result of his injuries, the worker has no function of his left hand, and a reduced range of motion and strength in his right calf, left shoulder, wrists and hands.

It was the homeowner who proactively sought advice from Ergon Energy. Even after the incident, it was the homeowner who paid for Ergon to deenergise the SWER line to prevent the exposure to risk when working on the roof.

The defendant had a Work Health Safety Management Plan (WHSMP) that identified the hazard of the SWER line and the requisite controls. However, those controls were not implemented at the worksite, and they failed to comply with their own WHSMP.

The defendant’s liability lies in its failure to eliminate or minimise the risk by not:

1. Obtaining safety advice from Ergon Energy prior to any work being carried out on the roof;
2. Establishing an exclusion zone clearly indicating the hazard of the SWER line;
3. Maintaining the exclusion zone;
4. Conducting a site induction for all workers on the risk arising from the hazard; and
5. Ensuring compliance with the Work Health and Safety Management Plan, including by:
   
   1. Erecting safety signage;
   2. Ensuring SRQ had documented safe work instructions; and
   3. Ensuring the SRQ provided a spotter when working within the exclusion zone.

Acting Magistrate Kirkman-Scroope found the offence to be serious, but the objective gravity was less than the subcontractor.

Her Honour had regard for the need to impose a sentence that reflected the principles of general deterrence, less so specific deterrence, and denunciation. Her Honour accepted the features in mitigation and reduced the sentence she would have otherwise imposed; that the defendant entered an early plea of guilty, has no criminal history, is a good corporate citizen, cooperated with all stages of the investigation, and demonstrated remorse.

Her Honour imposed a fine of $65,000 and exercised her discretion to not record a conviction.

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