AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 2 November 2026

SafeWork NSW v Axentra Projects Pty Ltd (formerly known as Transform Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd)

[2026] NSWDC 398

Other
CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING BUSINESS RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY MAXIMUM PENALTY

Citation: SafeWork NSW v Axentra Projects Pty Ltd (formerly known as Transform Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd) [2026] NSWDC 398
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 2 November 2026
Judge: Strathdee DCJ

Background

The defendant company (formerly trading as Transform Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd) was engaged as a subcontractor to design, supply and install formwork at a construction project in Chatswood, New South Wales. It used a modular aluminium panel system known as the Faresin Alufort Formwork System. The principal contractor on site was Richard Crookes Constructions Pty Limited.

In May 2022, a union notice temporarily closed part of the scaffolding, prompting the defendant's workers to remove a formwork box panel and install a ladder to access the deck between levels. When the ladder was later removed, a worker reinstalled the panel imperfectly and nailed a loose piece of plywood over it, without marking it or reporting the arrangement. The defendant's supervision did not detect this.

On 19 May 2022, Liam Doronzo, a 16-year-old trainee labourer engaged in cleaning the deck, picked up what appeared to be loose plywood. The formwork panel attached to it was dislodged, creating an opening through which he fell approximately 3.4 metres to the level below, sustaining multiple soft tissue injuries.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate penalty for a corporation guilty of breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), having failed to comply with its primary duty under section 19(1) to ensure the health and safety of workers so far as reasonably practicable?
  • What discount, if any, should apply for the guilty plea, having regard to the timing and circumstances of the plea and the amendments made to the summons?
  • Should the court reduce the fine based on the defendant's claimed financial incapacity to pay?
  • Should an adverse publicity order be made under section 236 of the WHS Act, including in circumstances where the defendant had changed its corporate name between entering the plea and sentencing?
  • What costs order was appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the plea negotiations?

Decision

Objective seriousness of the offence

The court found that risks associated with falls through formwork decks are well known and foreseeable, and the incident was foreseeable given the defendant's systemic deficiencies in its systems of work, training and supervision (at [71]-[72]). The defendant's failures were described as manifold and systemic, spanning problems with the system of work, inadequate supervision, and deficient training provided to the injured worker (at [76]). The court rejected the submission that the risk carried only a low degree of foreseeability because the particular mechanism of dislodgement was unusual, noting that the broader category of risk from falls through formwork decks was well established.

Aggravating factors

The court found that the injury sustained by the worker was more deleterious than may ordinarily be expected for the offence, constituting an aggravating factor under section 21A(2)(ib) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (at [89]-[90]). The court also found that Mr Doronzo was a vulnerable worker by reason of his age (16 years) and inexperience, constituting a further aggravating factor under section 21A(2)(l) of that Act (at [91]).

Mitigating factors

The defendant had no prior convictions under work health and safety law, cooperated with SafeWork NSW during its investigation, and demonstrated genuine remorse. It attended to the injured worker's medical and financial needs immediately after the incident and implemented wide-ranging safety reforms across its operations. The court accepted that the defendant has good prospects of rehabilitation and is unlikely to reoffend (at [93]-[98]).

Guilty plea discount

The court allowed a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea (at [103]-[104]). Although the prosecution disputed the entitlement to the maximum discount, the court found that the amendment to the summons refined the scope of the alleged risk in a meaningful way, following the defendant's requests for particulars made in late 2024. The court accepted that the plea to the refined charge provided significant utilitarian benefit to the administration of justice.

Capacity to pay

The court declined to reduce the fine based on the defendant's claimed financial difficulties, which included a net asset deficit exceeding $3.18 million and bank balances of less than $350 (at [112]-[117]). The court accepted the prosecution's submission that reducing the fine in these circumstances, where the financial position may be attributable in part to corporate restructuring, would undermine the intended effect of general deterrence.

Adverse publicity order

The court made an adverse publicity order under section 236 of the WHS Act, requiring publication of a prescribed notice in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sunday edition) (at [126]). The court accepted the prosecution's submission that the defendant's change of corporate name between the guilty plea and sentencing made the order particularly appropriate, to prevent corporate name changes from being used to minimise the commercial impact of adverse court orders.

Costs

Given the history of plea negotiations commencing towards the end of 2024 and the circumstances surrounding the amendments to the summons, the court ordered that the defendant pay the costs of the sentence proceedings only, not the full costs of the proceedings (at [122]).

Orders Made

  • The defendant is to pay a fine of $75,000 (assessed at $100,000, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea).
  • Pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
  • The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs of the sentence hearing, as agreed or assessed.
  • The defendant is to cause a Public Notice in the terms set out in Annexure A to be published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sunday edition) at the earliest practicable date following the order, at the defendant's cost. The notice must be no less than a half page horizontal (186mm x 260mm) at a cost of $3,250 inclusive of GST.
  • The defendant must provide the prosecutor with evidence of compliance with the adverse publicity order within two weeks of the date of publication, and notify the prosecutor of compliance no later than 5pm on 18 December 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that falls through formwork decks represent a well-known and foreseeable category of risk, such that unusual circumstances surrounding a specific fall mechanism do not necessarily reduce the foreseeability of the broader risk for sentencing purposes (at [71]-[72]).

  • A 25% guilty plea discount was available even where the plea was entered to an amended summons, provided the amendment meaningfully refined the scope of the alleged risk in a way that produced genuine utilitarian benefit to the administration of justice (at [103]-[104]).

  • Where a defendant's financial incapacity may be attributable in part to corporate restructuring, a court may decline to reduce a fine on capacity-to-pay grounds, particularly where general deterrence is a significant sentencing consideration (at [114]-[117]).

  • Under section 236 of the WHS Act, an adverse publicity order remains appropriate even after a defendant changes its corporate name between the guilty plea and sentencing. The court found that permitting name changes to avoid the commercial impact of such orders would create an undesirable loophole (at [124]-[126]).

  • Multiple simultaneous failures across systems of work, supervision and training can together constitute systemic offending under the WHS Act, and the vulnerability of an injured worker due to age and inexperience constitutes a distinct aggravating factor under section 21A(2)(l) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (at [76], [91]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A,21A, 22
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) , s 257B
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6 , 122
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19(1) , 31, 32, 117, 236

Cases
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37
- Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71
- Environmental Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
- Ferguson v Nelmac Pty Ltd (1999) 92 IR 188
- 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
- Inspector Beacham v J & L Marble Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIRComm 100
- Inspector Fraser v Karabelas (No 2) [2011] NSWIRComm 153
- Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178
- Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; (1990) 170 CLR 534
- Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- McColl v John Watson Building Services Pty Ltd (2004) 137 IR 310; [2004] NSWIRComm 353
- Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 147 IR 117; [2005] NSWIRComm 61
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399; [2012] VSCA 82
- 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 Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
- Rahme v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 81
- SafeWork NSW v Harris Holdings NSW Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Harry Zizikas [2017] NSWDC 299
- SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632
- SafeWork NSW v Cosentino Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 182
- SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Cai [2018] NSWDC 398
- SafeWork NSW v Saunders Civilbuild Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWDC163
- Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
- Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
- WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151
- WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700; [2000] NSWIRComm 142