Our compliance and enforcement activities may lead to prosecutions being filed in the South Australian Employment Tribunal and the Magistrates Court.

A prosecution may start either by our own initiative or following our consideration of a request from a person under Section 231(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

Prosecutors must prove the relevant elements of the offence and in the case of a Category 1 offence, that the conduct was reckless and without reasonable excuse.

Recent convictions

  • There has been no conviction in 2020.

  • S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd

    Marie Boland v S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd

    S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd have been convicted and fined a total of $70,000 plus legal fees after a contractor was injured when he fell into an open and unguarded cellar.

    The defendant, who own and operate the Strathmore Hotel in Adelaide, failed to provide and maintain a safe working environment at the Hotel, and to provide adequate information and training to its employees.

    Prior to the incident, the defendant engaged Murray Pest and Weed Control to perform pest eradication and control maintenance services at the Strathmore Hotel.

    In August 2013, a Murray’s contractor was injured when he fell through the open trapdoors of a cellar in the Hotel’s gaming room. The worker sustained a spleen laceration and required immediate treatment in hospital.

    The defendant entered a guilty plea in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) in September 2015.

    The SAET imposed a fine of $100,000, which was reduced by 30% to $70,000 for the defendant’s early guilty plea, demonstration of remorse and cooperation with SafeWork SA. In addition, a victim of crime levy, court costs and prosecution costs were ordered.

    The SAET considered that the offending was a serious breach of the WHS Act and deterrence was an important consideration in determining penalty.

    10 December 2019


    Anthony Rosier

    Martyn Campbell v Anthony Rosier

    Anthony Rosier was convicted and fined a total of $8,100 after pleading guilty to a breach of S43(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) and regulation 487(1) Work Health Safety Regulations (SA). In addition, prosecution costs and a victim of crime levy were also ordered.

    In November 2017, Rosier removed about 94m2 of asbestos containing material from a domestic dwelling without the necessary licencing to do so. He also failed to ensure that appropriate signage alerting the public to the presence of asbestos was put in place to indicate that this work was being carried out.

    The defendant entered a guilty plea in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) in November 2019.

    On 15 November 2019, the SAET imposed a conviction and the above penalty. The SAET remarked that the penalty took into account the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's significant prior offending regarding asbestos, the defendant's early guilty plea and the defendant's financial circumstances.

    15 November 2019


    Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd

    Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $15,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s33 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012(SA).

    On 25 March 2017, an apprentice engaged at the defendant’s electrical business was exposed to a risk to his safety when supervisors squirted flammable liquid onto the apprentice and ignited it.

    The defendant had a duty to ensure, as far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers.

    In this case it failed to adequately train and supervise its site supervisors involved in the incident and it failed to ensure that it possessed and made known to all of its workers a documented bullying and harassment policy.

    The defendant was found guilty with the penalty given taking into account the defendant’s contrition, early plea and co-operation with the investigation, their acceptance of responsibility for its role in the incident and identifying the deficiency of bullying and harassment policies at the time and making considerable investment to ensure workers have an avenue to report bullying.

    13 November 2019


    Luke Chenoweth

    Martyn Campbell v Luke Chenoweth

    Luke Chenoweth was convicted and fined $21,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 25 March 2017 the defendant was a site supervisor employed by Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd and was carrying out electrical work at a site in Woodville.

    Luke Chenoweth squirted a flammable liquid onto the boot, pants and shirt of an apprentice and ignited the flammable liquid.

    The defendant took no immediate steps to extinguish the flames on the apprentice’s shirt and his conduct made it possible for the apprentice to be killed or to sustain serious injuries from burns to his body.

    The defendant was found to be reckless as to the risk of death or serious injury to the apprentice.

    29 August 2019


    TC Formwork

    Martyn Campbell v TC Formwork Pty Ltd

    TC Formwork was convicted and fined $120,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 6 December 2016 a worker at a Windsor Gardens site fell over an exposed edge of formwork from a height of 4.4 metres above the ground, fracturing his leg.

    Workers at the site were exposed to a risk of death or serious injury because no static line system or fall restraint system had been installed, and workers did not wear harnesses.

    21 August 2019


    Jeffrey Rowe

    Martyn Campbell v Jeffrey Rowe

    Jeffrey Rowe was convicted and fined $12,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 25 March 2017 the defendant was a site supervisor employed by Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd and was carrying out electrical work at a site in Woodville.

    Another employee of Tad-Mar squirted a flammable liquid onto the boot and shirt of an apprentice and ignited the flammable liquid. The defendant took no steps to stop the actions of that employee. Instead the defendant squirted more flammable liquid onto the shirt of the apprentice whilst the shirt was burning.

    The defendant failed to take steps to stop the unsafe behaviour of the employee towards the apprentice, took no immediate steps to extinguish the flames on the apprentice’s shirt and was reckless as to the risk of death or serious injury to the apprentice.

    31 May 2019


    The State of South Australia (In the Right of South Australia Police)

    Martyn Campbell v The State of South Australia (In the Right of South Australia Police)

    SAPOL was convicted and fined $390,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 4 October 2016 a cook was working alone at SAPOL’s Echunga training site. As part of her duties she entered a walk-in freezer to access food to be used in connection with training courses.

    Whilst she was inside the freezer door was blown shut and the emergency door release inside the freezer was not functioning properly. As a result the cook was trapped inside the freezer and succumbed to hypothermia.

    The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, a safe work environment, safe plant at the site (being the freezer) as well as suitable and adequate information, training, instruction or supervision to the cook at the site.

    16 April 2019

  • Simec Zen Technologies (Power and Energy) Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Simec Zen Technologies (Power and Energy) Pty Ltd

    Zen Technologies were convicted and fined $114,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s 19 and s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 31 March 2016 two workers attended the premises of Wohlers in Tanunda to measure energy consumption and make an assessment as to a suitable energy storage system with a view to Wohlers going off grid.

    While attaching power analyser test equipment to a live electricity board at the premises to record electrical consumption, an electrical arc occurred injuring a worker. One worker suffered burns to hands, arms and face while the second worker escaped injury.

    The defendant failed to have in place adequate hazard identification and risk assessment processes and adequate documented safe work procedures in relation to the use of a power analyser to measure electricity consumption.

    31 October 2018


    Pro-Pac Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd

    Pro-Pac Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd were charged with breaches of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 1 June 2015 a worker sustained serious injuries to his lower leg when he was struck by a moving forklift driven by a co-worker.

    The defendant failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintenance of a safe system of work in relation to the task which minimised the risk of pedestrians coming into contact with a moving forklift in the area at the site where the task was performed.

    13 July 2018


    Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd

    Campbell v Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd

    Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd were convicted and fined $105,000 each after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). Compensation totalling $50,000 (5 x $10,000) was ordered to be paid to the worker’s family. On 9 August 2016, a 17 year old carpentry apprentice was killed when a 13 metre section of propped timber framing fell over striking the worker in the head and chest causing fatal crush injuries.

    The defendants failed to ensure to that their workers used a system of work which minimised the risk of timber framework falling by:

    • requiring all props used as temporary bracing to be nail-fixed at the top of a stud or top plate of the wall frame; and
    • adequately secured at the base to the slab, the ground or some other immovable object.

    11 May 2018


    Boland V JT Johnson and Sons Pty Ltd

    JT Johnson and Sons Pty Ltd were found guilty at trial for breaches of section 19(1) of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986. The company was convicted and fined $225,000. On 9 October 2012, an employee was crushed in the door of an item of plant while accessing the machine to perform maintenance work.

    The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable:

    • plant in a safe condition, in that it failed to prevent or minimize the risk of injury arising from the right hand side door closing
    • a safe system of work in that it failed to develop and implement a safe operating procedure (or procedures) which specified the access and egress point and procedures to be followed in respect of maintenance to be carried out and prohibited the use of the right hand side door as a point of access to, or egress from the machine.

    15 March 2018


    Laszlo Bajtek

    Soulio v Laszlo Bajtek

    Laszlo Bajtek was convicted after pleading guilty to sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). The charges relate to a workplace incident which occurred on the 1 June 2015 when a worker was seriously injured by a moving forklift.

    The defendant failed to:

    • comply with his health and safety duty prescribed by s19 (1) of the Act because he failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintenance of a safe system of work in relation to the task which minimised the risk [of] pedestrians coming into contact with a moving forklift in the area at the site where the task was performed, being an adequate traffic management system which prohibited the use of forklifts in the area where the task was performed
    • comply with his health and safety duty prescribed by s19(1) of the Act because he failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision of information, training and instruction or supervision that was necessary to protect the worker from risks to his health and safety arising from the performance of the task at the site.

    Given the defendants inability to pay, Magistrate Ardlie proceeded under the provisions of s13 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.

    The penalty imposed if the defendant was in a position to pay is $120,000 reduced by 20% to $96,000 for the guilty plea.

    2 March 2018

  • Duraform Productions (Australia) Pty Ltd

    Soulio v Duraform Productions (Australia) Pty Ltd

    Duraform Productions were convicted and fined $60,000 (after a 40% reduction) after pleading guilty to sections 19(1) and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 19 May 2016 a worker sustained a serious crush injury to the left hand while working on a laminating machine.

    The defendant failed to:

    • ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the plant was safe, by failing to provide adequate fixed guarding which prevented access to the roller.

    8 December 2017


    Unifresh Processors Pty Ltd

    Soulio v Unifresh Processors Pty Ltd

    Unifresh Processors were convicted and fined $52,500 (after 30% reduction) after pleading guilty to sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 11 May 2015 a worker sustained injuries which resulted in the partial amputation of three fingers while operating a dicing machine.

    The defendant failed to:

    • ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintained of a safe system of work in relation to the plant, namely a system of work based on adequate hazard identification and risk assessment, which ensured that an adequate safe operating procedure for the plant was provided and maintained
    • and failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision of information, training, instruction or supervision that is necessary to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety arising from work carried out on or near the plant, as part of the conduct of the defendant's business or undertaking, namely, information, training, instruction or supervision which ensured that workers were aware of and understood the contents of the safe operating procedure in relation to the plant.

    8 December 2017


    BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd

    Boland, Marie V BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd

    BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $390,000 (after a reduction of 401%) after pleading guilty to sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 10 February 2015 a worker was killed when he was crushed by falling rocks while drilling a development face at Olympic Dam Mine.

    The defendant failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work in that it failed to provide and maintain documented safe work procedure which required jumbo drill operators drilling development faces into which no ground support was installed to change any drill bits required to be changed not less than 2 metres from development faces.

    8 December 2017


    DSAP Pty Ltd

    Soulio v DSAP Pty Ltd

    DSAP were convicted and fined $2,000 (after a 40% reduction) after pleading guilty to a breach of Regulation 368(a) of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012 (SA). Between 20 June 2015 and 2 March 2016 the defendant failed to provide health monitoring to workers.

    24 November 2017


    Balhahn Pty Ltd t/as Balhannah Mitre 10

    Boland v Balhahn Pty Ltd trading as Balhannah Mitre 10

    Balhannah Mitre 10 were convicted and fined $85,000 (after a 15% reduction) after pleading guilty to a breach of s 19(1) and s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On the 8 December 2015, two employees were injured when two heavy steel tubes weighing between 60 and 80kg fell from the raised tines of a stationary forklift.

    The defendant failed to:

    • provide and maintain a safe system of work for the movement of stock using forklift trucks on its premises
    • and provide such information, instruction and training as was reasonably necessary to ensure the employees' safety.

    28 September 2017


    Thomas Foods International Lobethal Pty Ltd

    Boland v Thomas Foods International Lobethal Pty LtdCase no: 4170 of 2016

    Thomas Foods International Lobethal Pty Ltd (ACN 105 579 511) were convicted and fined $84,000 (after a 40% reduction due to guilty plea and high level of demonstrated contrition) after pleading guilty to s 19(1) and s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 13 August 2014 a worker suffered a serious hand injury while attempting to dislodge meat that was stuck inside an unguarded sausage machine.

    The defendant failed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of the worker specifically that it required the worker to operate an item of plant which was not provided or maintained in a safe condition. There was no interlocked guard fitted over the hopper of the mincer so as to prevent or minimize access by the worker to the hazardous moving parts situated within the hopper.

    28 September 2017


    Rota-Forma Pty Ltd trading as Olympic Industries

    Soulio v Rota Forma Pty Ltd trading as Olympic Industries

    Olympic Industries were convicted and fined $99,000 (after a 40% reduction) after pleading guilty to a breach of s 19(1) and s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 13 May 2015 a worker suffered a serious hand injury when it was crushed by a moving part of a large industrial guillotine.

    The defendant failed to:

    • comply, so far as was reasonably practicable, with its health and safety duty to its employee, thereby exposing the employee to a risk of serious injury
    • provide and maintain the guillotine in a safe condition, by failing to ensure an interlocked guard had been fitted to prevent access to and contact with hazardous movement of the support arm.

    14 August 2017


    C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd and Jenny-Lee Sullivan

    Boland v C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd and Jenny-Lee Sullivan

    C J & Sons Amusements and Jenny-Lee Sullivan were convicted after the first and second defendant pleads guilty to breaches: s19(2), 27, 32 and 42(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). The charge relates to an incident on 14 September 2014 when a child was flung from an amusement ride, owned and operated by C J & Sons Amusements Pty Ltd.

    The first defendant failed to:

    • provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, plant in safe condition, in that it failed to ensure that Ms Leong's restraint harness eliminated or minimised the risk of death or serious injury resulting from being ejected from the device during its operation
    • ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision of and maintenance of safe systems of work to eliminate or minimise the risk to Ms Leong of death or serious injury from being ejected from the device while it was in operation
    • register the devices design in accordance with the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012.

    The second defendant failed to:

    • exercise due diligence to ensure that the first defendant complied with its health and safety duty
    • exercise due diligence to ensure that the first defendant complied with its duty under section 42(1) of the Act.

    Given the inability to pay, Magistrate Ardlie proceeded under the provisions of s13 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 which in part state:

    "The court must not make an order requiring a defendant to pay a pecuniary sum (other than a Victim of Crime levy) if the court is satisfied that the means of the defendant, so far as they are known to the court, are such that - the defendant would be unable to comply with the order".

    The penalties imposed if the defendants were in a position to pay are as follows:

    • Count 1 (first defendant) $120,000 (the maximum sitting as an Industrial Magistrate is $300,000) reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $84,000.
    • Count 2 (first defendant) $15,000 reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $10,500.
    • Count 6 (second defendant) $85,000 reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $59,500.
    • Count 7 (second defendant) $5,000 reduced by 30% resulting in a fine of $3,500.
    • Compensation of the maximum amount of $20,000 would have been awarded.

    Charges were withdrawn against the third defendant, Clinton Watkins.

    13 July 2017


    NDA Australia Pty Ltd

    Boland v NDA Australia Pty Ltd

    NDA Australia were convicted and fined $39,000 (after a reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s19(1) and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 27 October 2015, a worker was injured acting as a spotter and assisting a co-worker who was operating a forklift transporting steel pipe. The worker was walking alongside the moving forklift using his hands to steady the pipe. During the process the worker was injured when the forklift ran over his foot.

    The defendant failed to:

    • ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that it provided and maintained a safe system of work for the performance of the task in that it failed to provide and maintain a written safe work procedure for transporting pipes
    • ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that it provided such information instruction, supervision and training as was necessary to protect the worker from injury and risk to health.

    7 July 2017


    Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd

    Boland v Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd [2017] SAIRC 16

    Kentucky Fried Chicken were convicted and fined $105,000 (after a reduction of 40%) and ordered to pay reparations of $15,000 to the victim after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 15 May 2015, a worker was injured when he tripped and fell into a tray containing hot oil that was located on the floor of the kitchen. The worker sustained second and third degree burns to his lower back, buttocks, right elbow and left shoulder. He remained an inpatient for two weeks.

    The defendant failed to:

    • ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that the kitchen floor was clear of slipping and tripping hazards whilst people were required to work in that area
    • provide and maintain a safe work procedure for filtering oil and cleaning the Henny Penny deep fryer ("the cooker")
    • provide workers performing tasks associated with the cooker with adequate information, instruction, training, or supervision necessary, so far as was reasonably practicable.

    4 May 2017


    Saxon Energy Services Australia Pty Ltd

    Boland v Saxon Energy Services Australia Pty Ltd [2017] SAIRC 12

    Saxon Energy Services Australia was convicted and fined $210,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 28 April 2013, two workers suffered serious crush injuries while working on the floor of a drilling rig in the Cooper Basin. The injured workers were operating manual tongs on the rig floor, assisting the driller with the task of unscrewing pipe joints. A second operator was inside the control room using a touchscreen to control the cables and tongs. While attempting to retract the tong cables the control room operator inadvertently extended the Hydraulic arm of the ST-80 Iron Roughneck trapping the workers.

    The company failed to ensure to minimise the risk that the ST 80's arm might be operated by a computer terminal other than the driller's computer terminal.

    14 April 2017

  • Exemptions

    Exemptions under the Act from prosecution for certain duty of care offences are:

    • volunteers (unless they failed to comply with a duty applicable to a worker or other person in the workplace)
    • unincorporated associations (however officers or members of an unincorporated association may be liable for a failure to comply with a duty)
    • Ministers of the Crown and an elected member of a local authority.