AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 10 July 2025

SafeWork NSW v SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWDC 249

Other
CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING BUSINESS OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS MITIGATING FACTORS

Citation: SafeWork NSW v SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 249
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 July 2025
Judge(s): Russell SC DCJ

Background

SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd (the defendant company) was a small family business engaged as a subcontractor by Quasar Constructions (Commercial) Pty Ltd to carry out plasterboard, ceiling linings, and cladding works at a school construction site in Wahroonga, NSW. On 6 May 2022, one of the company's workers, Mr Hongwei Dong, was attempting to remove furring channel clips from a window frame on level two of the site. He was squatting on a windowsill over a void covered by black plastic sheeting. When the elevated work platform he had used for a similar task moments earlier was unavailable, he proceeded without it. He fell approximately five metres through the plastic covering, struck machinery on the way down, and hit the ground below.

Mr Dong's injuries were severe. They included compression fractures of the thoracic spine with significant loss of vertebral height, multiple bilateral rib fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and he remained in post-traumatic amnesia for 22 days, indicating a severe brain injury.

The company pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its work health and safety duty under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), thereby exposing workers, and Mr Dong in particular, to a risk of death or serious injury, contrary to section 32 of that Act. The maximum penalty for the offence was $1,782,579.

  • How serious was the offence objectively, and where did it fall on the spectrum of culpability?
  • What mitigating factors applied, including the early guilty plea and the company's post-incident remediation?
  • What weight should be given to the company's limited financial capacity in setting the fine?
  • Was an order for prosecution costs appropriate?

Decision

Russell SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offence as falling in the low-to-moderate range. The company had failed on multiple fronts: its Safe Work Method Statement did not identify falls from voids or windows as a specific risk; no instructions were given to Mr Dong for the particular task he was performing; the requirement to use a scissor lift or elevated work platform to access the window was not enforced; and supervision was inadequate to ensure compliance with the existing safety systems. The applicable codes of practice, publicly available before the incident, expressly required fall prevention measures near holes and penetrations through which a worker could fall.

In terms of mitigation, the court noted the company's early guilty plea, its cooperation with investigators, its lack of prior convictions, the post-incident improvements to its SWMS (including a Mandarin translation and new controls around work near voids), and genuine remorse. The court also accepted that the company had operated with some safety systems before the incident, even if they proved inadequate, and had directly employed workers rather than using contractors, a practice the court viewed as somewhat more protective of workers' entitlements.

On capacity to pay, the court found that the company was a small family business with no current work, following the insolvency of its sole client (Quasar). Evidence from the company director and bank statements of his family satisfied the court that neither the company nor its principals could meet a large fine. The court moderated the fine significantly from what it would otherwise have imposed, while still reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. Before applying the guilty plea discount, the court assessed the appropriate fine at $120,000, then reduced it by 25 percent for the early plea to reach $90,000.

Orders Made

  • SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd is convicted.
  • SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd is ordered to pay a fine of $90,000 (being a base fine of $120,000 reduced by 25% for the early guilty plea).
  • Pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
  • SG Interior Linings Pty Ltd is ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.

Key Takeaways

  • A company's limited financial capacity can justify a significant downward moderation of a WHS fine, but the District Court confirmed that general deterrence and the seriousness of the offence remain relevant and can sustain a substantial penalty even for a small business with no assets.

  • Under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), a conviction does not require that a specific risk materialise in a particular way; here, the defendant's SWMS had not even identified falls from voids and windows as a hazard, illustrating the breadth of the duty to ensure workers' health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable.

  • Failing to enforce an existing safety control, in this case the requirement to use an elevated work platform, contributed materially to the court's assessment of culpability, even where some safety systems were nominally in place before the incident.

  • Post-incident remediation, including revised safe work method statements, project-specific safety policies, and multilingual documentation, was treated as a mitigating factor, though it carried less weight than pre-incident compliance would have.

  • An early guilty plea attracted a 25% reduction in the fine, consistent with the approach under section 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the principle that utilitarian value of a plea remains relevant in WHS sentencing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6, 122

Cases
- Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
- Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
- R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
- BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176
- R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432