Liable for injury because of lack of supervision

Unsafe work practices


In January 2010, a labour-hire company assigned one of its employees to work as a production operator at the factory of a company that manufactured veterinary pharmaceutical products.


The operator was required to empty 25kg bags of dextrose powder into a hopper. The system of work was to use a ‘lifter’ to wheel each bag into the so-called powder room. With the bag on the lifter’s platform, the operator could slit it open and use the lifter to raise the platform so the contents of the bag could empty into the hopper.

With the equipment doing the lifting, the operator did not need to lift the bag until it was almost empty.


In December 2011, the production operator was emptying a bag of dextrose into the hopper. When she was leaning forward from her waist, lifting the bag with her right arm and twisting her spine towards the hopper, she felt a pain in her back. She was on workers compensation until the end of 2012 and did return to work at the veterinary pharmaceutical company.


In September 2013 the operator commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW against the company. The particulars of the charge included that it had failed to: provide a safe system of work; undertake a risk assessment; eliminate the risks of injury, and provide adequate training and supervision.


In the District Court, Justice Mahoney found the system of work had not been unsafe as it had not required the operator to lift the 25kg bags. The operator had received instruction in the system when she first worked in the powder room, but she was injured because she had not complied with the system.


However, because the company had a duty to maintain and supervise workers, Justice Mahoney found that, but for its breach of duty in failing to supervise, the operator would not have been injured. He awarded her $588,515 in damages.

The company appealed, submitting that the primary judge had erred in his findings of breach of duty of care and that the damages award had been excessive.

Appeal finds primary judge was correct


In the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW, Justice Simpson examined the system of work and the training given. He concluded it was most likely the operator had carried out the task as she had described it in the District Court, which had been contrary to the instructions given.


She had adopted an unsafe work practice, but as her work had not been supervised her practice had continued uncorrected until she was injured. There had been no evidence the company had provided a formalised system of supervision.


The primary judge had been correct about the lack of supervision, and Justice Simpson was satisfied that “even a modicum of supervision would have exposed the incorrect method that the respondent was using”.


He said measures that could have been taken to avoid the harm eventuating “could hardly be described as burdensome”. Merely reasonable attention would have been required to check whether the operator had absorbed the instruction she had been given. Because her incorrect technique could easily have been corrected, there was no question of contributory negligence on her part.


In its allegation that the damages award had been excessive and not supported by the evidence, the company referred to the medical evidence of an expert who had found the operator had a pre-existing disc degeneration. Therefore he had assumed the injury must have been only a temporary aggravation.


The primary judge had preferred the evidence of another medical specialist, who had found her pre-existing disc lesion had been asymptomatic and that the incident in December 2011 had caused her a permanent impairment with severe ongoing pain.


The Court of Appeal, by majority, found there had been no error in the primary judge’s conclusions about the injury or in the assessment of damages. The appeal was dismissed.


The bottom line: Risk assessment is fundamental to workplace health and safety. Employers are expected to be alert to workplace risks and to take steps to eliminate or mitigate the risks.


Jurox Pty Ltd v Fullick [2016] NSWCA 180 (29 July 2016)

Contact Us

Zenergy News

Directors' duties for psych risks unpacked in new report
April 23, 2025
The WHS obligations of company directors include taking reasonable steps to understand the psychological hazards in their workplaces, and this is a "personal" prosecutable duty, a new guide for directors warns. Directors' obligations include establishing that their organisations and their management "are equipped with appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise these risks to the extent that is reasonably practicable", the guide by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and law firm King & Wood Mallesons says. Most of any organisation's work to address psychosocial hazards will be "driven by management", given the complexity of the risks and the deep operational knowledge required to guide action, it says. "The board plays a supporting role in constructively challenging these efforts and maintaining oversight of how effective psychosocial risk management contributes to broader organisational culture and leadership." Under Australia's national model WHS laws – adopted by all jurisdictions other than Victoria, which has similar legislation – officers have a duty to exercise due diligence to confirm their organisation is meeting its WHS obligations. (See section 27 of NSW's version of the laws, for example.) This duty is a "personal duty, meaning [officers] can be prosecuted for failing to meet their due diligence obligations", the guide says. "Prosecution typically requires proof that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to comply with their duty, assessed in the context of the organisation's overall safety and health management system," it says. These due diligence obligations apply to paid directors, and are "recommended" for volunteer directors, who can be prosecuted in limited circumstances. "While non-executive directors have not been the focus of WHS regulators to date, this can change, and regulatory expectations are rising," the guide notes. According to the 12-page document , company boards and governance play a crucial role in ensuring psychosocial risks are managed effectively. Directors must oversee management's efforts at identifying and implementing control measures, set expectations and confirm that the necessary frameworks are in place. "This includes seeking information, reviewing board reports, assessing organisational culture, and challenging management where needed to strengthen risk controls," the guide says. Examples of how boards should address the workplace factors that create psychosocial risks include: Overseeing how managers monitor the risks associated with work design by drawing on complaints data, employee surveys, and absence and turnover rates, and engaging regularly with management to assess risks and evaluate measures; Confirming that management is complying with the positive duty to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, and obtaining regular reports on key behavioural risks involving code of conduct breaches and harassment cases; Setting expectations for management to provide workers with practical assistance and timely consultation in the event of organisational change and restructures, which can create significant stress; Engaging with management to review how it is addressing remote work risks, and ensuring there they have a clear policy to guide them in determining when remote arrangements are appropriate; and Overseeing how HR and performance management processes are managed, and confirming that investigation procedures are fair, workers have access to appropriate support, and outcomes are handled as consistently as possible. Governing WHS Psychosocial Risks: A primer for directors, by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and King & Wood Mallesons, April 2025 This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au.
April 7, 2025
Zenergy recently hosted Women in Safety, a special networking event dedicated to fostering collaboration in the health, safety, and wellbeing sector. Held on March 20, 2025, at The Winery, Surry Hills, this event provided a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere where professionals gathered to exchange insights, share experiences, and build meaningful connections. With attendees from diverse industries—including construction, logistics, corporate sectors, and more—the event highlighted the vital role of women in shaping safer workplaces across Australia.
March 25, 2025
Podcasts have become a dominant force in the world of media, revolutionising how we consume information and entertainment and the WHS, Environment & Sustainability is no different! As the podcast industry continues to expand, listeners are discovering a wealth of benefits, from educational insights to fostering community connections. In this article, we share some of the leading podcasts and why they’ve become a growing part of modern WHS, Environment & Sustainability consumption. Here are some of the leading podcasts that every WHS, Environmental, and Sustainability professional should tune into:
March 24, 2025
Colin Hansen, WHS Director John Holland - M7M12 Project
March 3, 2025
Zenergy invites you to be part of the prestigious 2025 Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards (AWHSA) —a national platform dedicated to recognising outstanding achievements in workplace health and safety. These awards celebrate individuals and organisations that are making a real impact in fostering safer, healthier work environments.
February 28, 2025
Australia has enacted mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, effective from 1 January 2025, through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024. These regulations mandate that large entities disclose climate-related financial information as part of their annual reporting obligations.
More Posts