An incident occurred on 9 December 2022, when two live powerlines were unintentionally pulled down at a house that was undergoing renovations.
Between the dates of 9 December 2022 and 8 February 2023 an inspector from SafeWork SA was investigating the incident and had requested information and documentation from the building company, these requests were made via phone and email. The inspector had received some information from SA Power Networks (SAPN) who had attended the site to make the live wires safe. The inspector had requested an incident report for the incident and what corrective actions had been put in place to prevent further incidents from occurring, a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS), outlining the controls whilst working in the vicinity of overhead powerlines, copies of the workers white cards, scope of works and all names and contact details of any contractors working on site.
The court did not accept the defendant’s assertion that its director verbally relayed the same details of the incident to the Inspector on 14 December as were later submitted in writing on 2 February. There was no supporting evidence for this claim. The claim was inconsistent with the Inspector’s email dated 14 December requesting an incident report, as well as the Inspector’s unanswered telephone messages on 16 and 19 December. Moreover, the director’s email of 2 February contains no reference to any prior communication for the information.
The information that was eventually provided on 2 February failed to address key matters that a reasonably responsible individual in charge of a construction site — particularly one involving downed live power lines — would be expected to investigate. It did not identify the excavator operator, the person who handled the live wires, or any corrective measures implemented to prevent a recurrence. Rather, the response consisted of peripheral details and avoided addressing the main concerns. The court decided that this cannot be characterised as even partial compliance. Furthermore, the response was only submitted after the Inspector’s phone call on 1 February.
The failure to comply with the notice was neither accidental nor the result of a misunderstanding. The notice was issued in circumstances where the defendant’s director had not notified SafeWork of the incident involving two downed live power lines at a site under his supervision. When the SAPN repair crew arrived, work was still being carried out in the vicinity of the live wires. Although the director initially indicated a willingness to provide an incident report, the information subsequently supplied was superficial and failed to meet the requirements. When provided with another opportunity to comply, the director gave an assurance to do so yet ultimately failed again — even after a second formal notice was issued. The director did not cooperate with the Inspector, having withheld the requested information, and there is no evidence to suggest that fulfilling the notice requirements would have been troublesome.
There were limited mitigating considerations. The director maintained some communication with the Inspector and submitted minor information, even though it was after the deadline. It is also noted that the downed power line was reported to SAPN on the morning of the incident.
Specific deterrence was necessary due to the defendant’s poor level of cooperation and its ongoing failure to provide the required information.
Although the timing of the guilty plea may justify a reduction of up to 30% in the fine, a lower discount was considered appropriate due to the absence of demonstrable remorse beyond the plea itself and the continued lack of rectification. A reduction of 25% is therefore deemed appropriate.
A starting point for the financial penalty is set at $10,000. After applying for the reduction, the final fine imposed is $7,500.
Key Learnings from the Prosecution
Immediate incident notification is critical
Companies must know their legal obligation to notify regulators about Notifiable incidents at the workplace. Delays or omissions can be considered breaches in themselves.
Full and timely compliance with regulator requests is non-negotiable
When a safety regulator requests documentation or information, respond fully, accurately, and promptly. Partial or vague responses (or ignoring deadlines) are taken seriously and can lead to legal action.
SWMS must be fit-for-purpose
Ensure that all Risk Assessments and SWMS are site-specific, clearly outline controls for all risks and are understood and followed by all workers on site.
Accountability and investigation post-incident are essential
After an incident, conduct a thorough internal investigation. Identify who was involved, what went wrong, and implement clear corrective and preventive actions. Document everything properly.
Communication and cooperation with safety regulators matter
Always adopt a cooperative and transparent approach with inspectors and authorities. It can significantly impact how your case is handled and how penalties are assessed.
Responsibility can’t be delegated away
Officers must ensure compliance isn’t just talked about, it must be demonstrable, documented, and embedded in daily operations. Verbal statements alone won’t hold up in court.
Guilty pleas, don’t always equal leniency
Remorse must be demonstrated through tangible steps: full cooperation, fixing processes, training staff, and ensuring no recurrence.
What Companies Should Do to Avoid Similar Outcomes
Develop and maintain strong incident response procedures
Know what constitutes a notifiable incident and who is responsible for reporting it immediately.
Have clear, site-specific SWMS and review them regularly
Especially for high-risk work, don’t use generic templates without tailoring them.
Train your team – and keep records
Ensure all workers have appropriate licenses, white cards, and site inductions. Keep these records updated and accessible.
Investigate every incident thoroughly
Identify all involved, conduct a root cause analysis, and implement meaningful corrective actions. Document it.
Foster a culture of transparency with regulators
Respond quickly and respectfully to requests. Don’t wait for follow-ups or enforcement action.
Hold Leadership accountable
Officers must understand they are responsible for safety and legal compliance. Delegate tasks, not accountability.
