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

Zenergy Upcoming Leaders Forum

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.

Groping dismissal highlights raised bar of consent

22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."

Zenergy Team Outing

22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure

Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch

16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch

Client Focus – Snowy Hydro

16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality

Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls

16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: