The District Court of Queensland has dismissed an appeal by B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd regarding its conviction for a Work Health and Safety (WHS) breach related to a 2020 incident. The case involved a labour hire worker, Mr Sills, who was seriously injured when struck by a grader while laying geofabric on a civil construction site.
The court found that although B.M.D. Constructions had documented safety systems and training in place, these measures were not effectively implemented at the time of the incident. The prosecution centered on whether “reasonably practicable” steps were taken to prevent risks associated with pedestrian and plant interaction.
B.M.D. argued that the Magistrate incorrectly inferred there were missing safety instructions and exclusion zones, especially since the workers were trained and had previously communicated well with the grader operator. However, the District Court disagreed, stating that “insufficient compliance and enforcement” of procedures occurred on the day of the incident. The absence of testimony from both the site supervisor and grader operator played a significant role in this finding, as it left key questions about what instructions were given unanswered.
A main point in the decision was the need for active supervision during high-risk tasks. While acknowledging that laying geofabric was a short-term job, the court determined it still posed an “extreme risk” requiring either a supervisor or spotter to be present. Although B.M.D.’s own documents listed such controls as standard practice for mobile plant work, no one was assigned to oversee this particular activity. The court noted that assigning supervision would likely have prevented miscommunication—specifically, an incorrect “thumbs up” signal that led to movement of machinery.
Regarding physical barriers like hats or flagging tape, the court was cautious. It found there was not enough evidence to show these would have been available or effective in preventing the accident; photographs taken after the event did not prove their presence or suitability at the time.
The judgment highlights challenges for insurers and legal teams defending WHS claims: missing witness accounts can undermine defence efforts significantly. The court also made clear that mistakes or miscommunications by workers are unlikely to break causation; companies must anticipate human error and ensure oversight is maintained during hazardous activities.
The decision serves as a reminder for organisations operating in high-risk environments: having comprehensive paperwork is not enough unless there is proof those systems are enforced on-site during dynamic tasks. Courts will continue to expect proactive supervision where people work near heavy machinery.