Citation: SafeWork NSW v Tiger Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 300
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 August 2025
Judge: Strathdee DCJ
Background
Tiger Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd is an electrical contracting company that performs repairs and maintenance work for government and commercial clients. In February 2022, Tiger was engaged to carry out remedial electrical work at a residential property in Wareemba, NSW, following storm damage that had caused a power outage to the property's garage.
Tiger assigned a fourth-year apprentice electrician, Mr Zeon East, to attend the property on 11 February 2022 to run a new cable and restore power to the garage. Mr East accessed the garage roof space to connect the new cable to a junction box. While in the roof space, his stomach rested against a 35mm exposed copper pipe. Shortly after connecting the new cable, Mr East suffered fatal electrocution. Post-mortem examination revealed electrical burn injuries across his hands, fingers, and stomach.
SafeWork NSW prosecuted Tiger under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (the WHS Act) for failing to comply with its primary duty under s 19(1), which requires a person conducting a business or undertaking to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers. Tiger pleaded guilty.
Legal Issues
- Whether Tiger breached its primary duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act by failing to manage the risk of electric shock or electrocution to workers in a residential roof space
- The appropriate sentence, including how to weigh objective seriousness, subjective factors, and the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea
- Whether a work health and safety project order under s 238 of the WHS Act was appropriate
Decision
The District Court accepted Tiger's guilty plea and proceeded to sentence. The court found that the risk involved, namely electrocution from energised cables, copper pipes, or other conductive materials in a roof space, was well known in the electrical industry and of significant gravity. The danger was present as soon as a person entered an energised roof space without the electricity having been isolated. The reasonably practicable control measures Tiger failed to implement were, by the defendant's own admission, readily available and of negligible cost.
The court acknowledged that Tiger was not a company that had wholly disregarded safety. It had subscribed to safety management systems, maintained lock-out/tag-out (LOTO) procedures, and had relevant operational policies in place. However, those policies were not enforced in practice when workers went out to perform installation tasks. The gap between documented procedure and on-the-ground compliance was central to the offending.
On the subjective side, the court accepted that Tiger was a corporate offender of good character, was unlikely to reoffend, had co-operated with SafeWork NSW investigators, demonstrated genuine remorse, and had taken significant steps to improve its safety systems since the incident. These factors, together with the early guilty plea, informed the final penalty. The court set the appropriate fine at $400,000, then applied a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the early plea, consistent with the principles in R v Thomson; R v Houlton, producing a final fine of $300,000. A project order under s 238 of the WHS Act was also imposed to require Tiger to implement specified safety measures within eight months.
Orders Made
- Tiger Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd is convicted of the offence under s 32 of the WHS Act.
- A fine of $300,000 is imposed (reduced from $400,000 by 25% for the early guilty plea).
- The prosecutor (SafeWork NSW) is to receive a moiety of 50% of the fine.
- Tiger Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
- Tiger Electrical Solutions Pty Ltd is to comply with a WHS Project Order pursuant to s 238 of the WHS Act within eight months of the orders, in accordance with Annexure A to the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 19(1) of the WHS Act, a business conducting electrical work bears a duty to identify and eliminate or minimise known risks to workers, including the well-recognised risk of electrocution from energised cables and conductive materials in roof spaces.
- Having documented safety procedures is insufficient on its own: the District Court found that Tiger's failure lay in not enforcing those procedures when workers went to site, not in a complete absence of safety systems.
- An early guilty plea attracted a 25% discount from the base fine of $400,000, consistent with the established approach in R v Thomson; R v Houlton and the relevant provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
- Corporate good character, co-operation with investigators, demonstrated remorse, and post-incident remediation all operated as mitigating factors in fixing the penalty, though they did not displace the gravity of the underlying offending.
- Section 238 of the WHS Act provides the court with power to impose a project order requiring a convicted defendant to undertake specific safety-related measures, and the District Court exercised that power here by setting an eight-month compliance deadline.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19(1), 31, 32, 238
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22
Cases
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71
- Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 147 IR 117; [2005] NSWIRComm 61
- Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464
- Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399; [2012] VSCA 82
- SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632
- SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Cai [2018] NSWDC 398
- WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151
- R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304
- R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434; [2004] NSWCCA 92
- R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68
- R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481; [2006] NSWCCA 272
- R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
- Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384
- Haynes v CI & D Manufacturing Pty Limited (No 2); Callaghan v CI & D Industries Pty Limited (No 2) (1995) 60 IR 455