Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2) - [2025] QIRC 169

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 169

Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2)[2025] QIRC 169

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 169

PARTIES:

Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd

(Applicant)

v

The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WHS/2024/267

PROCEEDING:

Application for external review

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2025

MEMBER:

Caddie IC

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDER:

1. The Review Decision is confirmed. Prohibition Notice P1051598 was valid.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY – prohibition notice – where an Inspector issued a prohibition notice – application for external review of the decision to issue a prohibition notice – test of reasonable belief – whether the belief held by the Inspector was reasonable – whether the belief could be reasonable where the activity was not occurring immediately – where correspondence after the issue of the prohibition notice was not relevant to reasonable belief – decision confirmed.

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ss 195, 196, 197, 223, 229, 229D, 229E, Sch 2A

CASES:

Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2) [2019] QIRC 133

Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2024] QIRC 85

APPEARANCES:

Mr C Donghi of Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd for the Applicant.

Mr B McMillan of Counsel, instructed by the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    On 10 September 2024 Inspector James Ross from Work Health and Safety Queensland issued a prohibition notice pursuant to s 195 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 ('the WHS Act') to the Applicant in this matter, Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd ('Steadfast Constructions').
  2. [2]
    The prohibition notice (P1051598) stated that the Inspector reasonably believed that:

…an activity may occur at the workplace that will involve a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard and that this action is likely to be contravening a provision of the: Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – section(s) 19(1)

  1. [3]
    The activity subject to the direction was:

Performing construction works using the hoist to lift single beams on uneven ground and not connected to the hoist until an inspector is satisfied that the matters that will give rise to the risk have been remedied.

  1. [4]
    Steadfast Constructions requested an internal review of the decision to issue the prohibition notice on 24 September 2024.[1] On review the Regulator affirmed the decision of the Inspector to issue the notice. This decision was issued by letter dated 16 October 2024.
  2. [5]
    Steadfast Constructions filed an application for external review of the Regulator's decision on 15 November 2024. The following orders were sought:
  • that the prohibition notice be revoked;
  • that the review decision of 8 October 2024 be overturned; [2] and
  • confirmation that 'the actions taken by Steadfast Constructions, as outlined and clarified in the email (attached as Annexure 2) to the inspector comply with relevant health and safety obligations.'[3]

Grounds of Review

  1. [6]
    Steadfast Constructions nominates the following grounds of review:[4]
  • that the prohibition notice was issued without 'direct observation of unsafe activity or sufficient evidence of immediate or imminent risk' as required by the WHS Act; and
  • that the internal review decision did not consider 'critical evidence' contained in an email sent by Steadfast Constructions that summarised the 'safe work methods being followed'; and
  • the decision to confirm the prohibition notice 'relies on speculative assumptions rather than concrete evidence', which has the effect of 'unjustly tarnishing' the company's record with Workplace Health and Safety.

Relevant legislation

  1. [7]
    Section 195 of the WHS Act relevantly confers power upon the Inspector to issue a prohibition notice and sets out the conditions 'which must exist prior to the issuing' of a notice:[5]

Power to issue prohibition notice

  1. This section applies if an inspector reasonably believes that –
  1. an activity is occurring at a workplace that involves or will involve a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard; or
  2. an activity may occur at a workplace that, if it occurs, will involve a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.
  1. The inspector may give a person who has control over the activity a direction prohibiting the carrying on of the activity, or the carrying on of the activity in a stated way, until an inspector is satisfied that the matters that give or will give rise to the risk have been remedied.
  2. The direction may be given orally, but must be confirmed by written notice (a prohibition notice) issued to the person as soon as practicable.
  1. [8]
    Section 196 of the WHS Act establishes the mandated contents of the prohibition notice:

Contents of prohibition notice

  1. A prohibition notice must state –
  1. that the inspector believes that grounds for the issue of the prohibition notice exist and the basis for that belief; and
  2. briefly, the activity that the inspector believes involves or will involve the risk and the matters that give or will give rise to the risk; and
  3. the provision of this Act that the inspector believes is being, or is likely to be, contravened by that activity.
  1. A prohibition notice may include directions on the measures to be taken to remedy the risk, activities or matters to which the notice relates, or the contravention or likely contravention mentioned in subsection (1)(c).
  2. Without limiting section 195, a prohibition notice that prohibits the carrying on of an activity in a stated way may do so by specifying 1 or more of the following –
  1. a workplace, or part of a workplace, at which the activity is not to be carried out;
  2. anything that is not to be used in connection with the activity;
  3. any procedure that is not to be followed in connection with the activity.
  1. [9]
    Section 197 of the WHS Act goes on to mandate compliance with the prohibition notice:

Compliance with prohibition notice

The person to whom a direction is given under section 195(2) or a prohibition notice is issued must comply with the direction or notice.

Maximum penalty – 1,000 penalty units.

Nature of Review

  1. [10]
    The power of the Commission to review the decision is set out in the WHS Act:

229  Application for external review

  1. An eligible person may apply to the external review body for a review (an external review) of –
  1. a reviewable decision made by the regulator; or
  2. a decision made, or taken to have been made, on an internal review.

…

229E Powers of commission on application

  1. In deciding an application for a review, the commission may –
  1. confirm the decision; or
  2. vary the decision; or
  3. set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution for it; or
  4. set aside the decision and return the issue to the decision-maker with directions the commission considers appropriate.
  1. If the commission acts under subsection (1)(b) or (c), the decision is taken, for this Act (other than this part), to be that of the person whose decision was the subject of the application.

Question to be decided

  1. [11]
    It is not in dispute that Inspector Ross was authorised to issue the prohibition notice, that there is no defect in the notice issued, or that there was any technical or procedural irregularity with the process followed.
  2. [12]
    Consequently, the question for my determination is whether the Inspector's belief, given the requirements imposed by s 195 of the WHS Act, was reasonable in all the circumstances at the time the prohibition notice was issued.[6]
  3. [13]
    The nature of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission is that of a fresh hearing, so any deficiencies contended with the Regulator's decision itself are not relevant to this proceeding.[7]
  4. [14]
    In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011,[8] VP O'Connor considered the usual principle that the burden falls on the Applicant to prove their case,[9] while also acknowledging there are cases where facts central to the determination of the key question are 'peculiarly' in the knowledge of one party.[10] VP O'Connor explained that a distinction can be drawn between the legal and evidentiary burdens of proof,[11] concluding:

[27]  The onus rests with the permit holders to establish reasonable belief. The facts leading to the formation of a reasonable belief are within the knowledge of the inspectors who issued the relevant notices. It is only the relevant Inspector who is in a position to give evidence on the facts giving rise to their purported reasonable belief leading them to issue the notices. [12]

  1. [15]
    Due to the centrality of the Inspector's beliefs to the determination of this matter it was agreed that Inspector Ross, witness for the Regulator, would give evidence first, followed by Mr Donghi on behalf of Steadfast Constructions.[13]

Background to the issuing of the prohibition notice

  1. [16]
    On 10 September 2024, Inspector Ross attended 60 Chiswick Road, Paddington ('the site') in response to a complaint unrelated to the parties in these proceedings. At the site Inspector Ross observed steel structural beams and a hand operated hoist lifter.
  2. [17]
    Inspector Ross spoke with Paddy McMahon, who had identified himself as the Supervisor at the site for Steadfast Constructions and advised that the steel beams and the lifter were intended to be used the following day.[14] It is not in dispute between the parties that the lifter was not in use at the time Inspector Ross attended the site.[15]
  3. [18]
    The record kept by Inspector Ross of his site attendance outlines the events as follows:[16]

…

Met with showed id to Paddy MCMAHON (Raise My House)…

…

I then had discussions with PADDY MCMAHON about the installation of the structural steel beams

Further inquiries identified the beams range from 7-10m lengths and weigh from 120-240kg and they have a hand operated hoist to lift the beams. I asked are you going to secure them he stated I can if I need to

I observed the beams are going to be lifted on uneven ground and weren't going to be secured

If a beam was to fall whilst being lifted into the house it could result in serious risk of bodily injury or death

I then asked to look at the manufacture specifications Genie

I observed page two sates (sic) do not raise unless the machine is on firm level ground and do not raise unless the load handling is properly attached.

I rang my manager at time of visit. explained to my manager what they were intending on doing was not safe and [I am] issuing a Prohibition notice for may occur. Due to the beam lengths and weights of the beams being lifted on uneven ground in to the house and I explained I was worried as the beams were being lifted they could cause a see saw effect and fall of (sic) in injuring workers in the vicinity of the lift. I explained I had looked at the manufacturers specifications and it sated not to lift on uneven ground and also needs to be secured which they had intended on lifting the beams on uneven ground and not securing them until i intervened. My manager agreed with me it is not safe what they are intending on doing

Issued prohibition notice

Paddy rang his boss and explained the situation and has suggested they are looking to lift on the concrete slab which is firm level ground and use two hoists instead of one that way it will stop the beams from sea sawing.

I explained I have issued the prohibition notice

I explained you need to have your boss make contact with the manufacturer Genie and explain what you are doing.

He understood what was discussed

I thanked them for there (sic) time

I said I will follow up with notices

  1. [19]
    Inspector Ross issued the prohibition notice verbally and later that same day issued the written prohibition notice. The written prohibition notice was electronically signed by Inspector Ross and emailed to Steadfast Constructions.[17] In the email, Inspector Ross stated:

Good Afternoon Paddy,

Please see attached notices as discussed with you at time of visit.

…

I James Ross an officer of the public service and an inspector, ID … appointed under the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011…I have the authority to exercise compliance power under s 165 of the WHS Act, including taking enforcement measures under each Act.

I am sending the attached notices as discussed. Your rights of appeal are set out in the notice/s on page 2 as is the requirement to display the notice/s in a prominent location at the workplace on page 1. Please supply evidence of notices on display in the workplace.

…

In the case of a prohibition notice failure to comply with notice may result in prosecution action being taken against you.

You must respond to a prohibition notice, advising me of compliance and providing evidence of the way the risk is managed…

  1. [20]
    On 11 September 2024 Mr Callan Donghi, Director of Steadfast Constructions, emailed Inspector Ross:

Hi James

Good afternoon, I hope that this email finds you well. I am the builder at Raise My House. Please find a copy of the prohibition notice (laminated and pinned to site sign). Our guys on site are lifting the steel into position with house raising blocks as per our SWMS. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns…[18]

Grounds of Review - Consideration

  1. [21]
    The power to issue the notice arises where an inspector reasonably believes that an activity is occurring or, as relevant to this case - may occur – and if it occurs will involve a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.
  2. [22]
    There is no requirement for the activity to be occurring for the notice to be validly issued. There must be a reasonable belief that if that activity occurred it will involve a serious risk emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.
  3. [23]
    The purpose of a prohibition notice is to stop or prevent an activity at a workplace or modify the way the activity is carried out.[19] The objectives of a notice are 'remedial and preventative' and founded on the inspector's evaluation of risk based on information available at a particular point in time.[20]

Did the Inspector hold a reasonable belief at the time he issued the prohibition notice?

Basis for Inspector's Belief

  1. [24]
    The prohibition notice sets out the basis for the Inspector's belief as follows:

Discussions with the Supervisor identified he wanted to use the single hoist to lift beams tomorrow, from 10m weighing 240kg in length and beams from 7-9m weighing between 120 – 170kg on uneven ground and metal on metal unsecured. If the beam was to fall it would result in serious risk of bodily injuries or death. I observed photographed noted the manufacturer specifications sates (sic) page 2 states do not raise unless the machine is on a firm level surface. Do not raise unless the load handling is properly attached secured to the machine.

STEADFAST CONSTRUCTIONS (QLD) PTY LTD has failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of (a) workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the person; and (b) workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the person; while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking.

  1. [25]
    As discussed by VP O'Connor in Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2) ('Multiplex Constructions') 'reasonable belief' is not defined in the WHS Act (citations omitted):[21]

[27]  Reasonable belief is not defined in the WHS Act. In George v Rocket & Anor the High Court had to consider what reasonable grounds meant in the context of whether or not a Magistrate had reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant. In a unanimous judgement, the Court (Mason Cj., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) said:

The objective circumstances sufficient to show a reason to believe something need to point more clearly to the subject matter of the belief, but that is not to say that the objective circumstances must establish on the basis of probabilities that the subject matter in fact occurred or exists: the assent of belief is given on more slender evidence than proof. Belief is an inclination of the mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition and the grounds which can reasonably induce that inclination of the mind may, depending on the circumstances, leave something to surmise or conjecture.

  1. [26]
    When considering the structure and elements of the conferral of power on Inspectors in s 195 of the WHS Act, the following observations of VP O'Connor are relevant (citations omitted):[22]

[22] The power to issue the notice under s 195 of the WHS Act is enlivened where an inspector reasonably believes that an activity is occurring or may occur that involves a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.

[23]Section 195 is concerned with a workplace activity which is occurring or may occur and stopping or preventing the activity before it can pose a serious risk to the health or safety of a person.

[24] An element of s 195 is the concept of control. The effect of s 195(2) and (3) enables inspectors to issue oral directions and written notices to a person who is currently in control of an activity. Ordinarily this would be a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) such as Multiplex. Because prohibition notices are designed as a response to serious risks to work health or safety, directions may be issued orally at first instance, but must be confirmed by a written notice as soon as practicable.

[25] With respect to the identified risk the Inspector must consider the risk to be serious and be associated with an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard. If the risk ceases to be a serious risk or if there is no immediate or imminent exposure then the Inspector ought not issue the Notice.

The Inspector's evidence

  1. [27]
    It is confirmed in the evidence of the Inspector on cross-examination that he was not at the site in relation to issues with Steadfast Constructions and the lifter was not being used at the time he formed his reasonable belief. [23]
  2. [28]
    Rather, in evidence-in-chief, the Inspector explains he observed the lifter on uneven ground and structural beams on the ground next to the lifter with a house needing to be raised. This prompted him to ask Mr McMahon some questions. Those questions related to the intended use for the lifter, the length and weight of the beams to be moved and whether it was intended to secure them.[24]
  3. [29]
    The responses to these questions enabled the Inspector to understand the lifter was intended to be used the following day, that the beams were 7, 9 and 10 metres in length and between 120 and 240 kg in weight. When asked if it was the intention of the Supervisor to secure the beams the recollected response was "I can if you want me to", which the Inspector thought might not have been the exact words he used. When referring to his notes for certainty he said the response was "I can if I need to."[25]
  4. [30]
    The Inspector then provides insight into what he was thinking and his view of the serious risk to workers undertaking or in vicinity of the activity creating imminent risk:

So then – so straightaway, I'm thinkin', so we've got metal on metal-um-you know, a seesaw effect. That's why I'm starting to get worried, so I'm forming my reasonable belief in relation to that there could an immediate risk…there's gonna be workers in the vicinity as well. So then…I asked to look at the manufacturer's specifications and … he brought that up there, and then I looked in page 2, and it stated that … you can't be lifting on uneven ground, and also, it needs to be secured as well.[26]

…at that stage, then, I'd – um - formed the reasonable belief, and then I…contacted my operations manager to explain … the…evidence that I'd gathered in relation to what they intended on doing, and I believe that if I hadn't intervened that this would have gone ahead… – so I explained that…I'd had a conversation. I'd … made inquiries with Paddy in relation to what they were doing, and … asked … what the lengths of the … beams were and how much they weigh as well, and … I was worried about the seesaw effect as well. So he agreed that … to write a prohibition, but it'd be 'may occur' and the reason for that is that the works wasn't occurring at the time. So … with a prohibition notice … the activity could be occurring. So for example, if we were looking over there and there was a worker on a live edge three or four metres up in the – in – in the air without any edge protection or harnesses, well, then, there's serious risk of bodily injuries or death if they were to fall off that ledge. So therefore, it's an activity is occurring…However, through the inquiries that I made – and I knew that if I hadn't intervened that they were going to go ahead and do this work – then I wrote the – ah – prohibition notice to say "may occur".[27]

…

--- based on what the supervisor had told you, did you think about, if that activity did occur the following day, what risks that might pose to someone onsite? --- Well, straightway, we're not – we're not following the manufacturer's specifications. Um – it's not on even ground. Um – it's not attached as well, metal on metal, and – ah – it could be a seesaw effect, and that could actually potentially come down and – and harm one of the workers…

And this might seem like an obvious question … but what's the consequences of it being like that? Falling ---? --- Well, it could squash … a worker.[28]

  1. [31]
    This evidence is consistent with the Inspector's notes, the electronic version of the notes and the photographs taken of the lifter, beams and the relevant section of the User's Manual on the day of the site visit.[29]  His belief is formed based on his own observation, the statements of the supervisor and by looking at the requirements of the user's manual for the lifter. He then seeks the advice of his own supervisor who confirms his view based on the assessment of the available evidence that there is a sufficient basis to issue the notice regarding an activity that may occur. This demonstrates the decision was based on more than mere speculation as contended in the grounds for review.

Mr Donghi's evidence

  1. [32]
    In Mr Donghi's evidence under cross-examination it is not disputed that Mr McMahon was the supervisor on site and the only representative of Steadfast Constructions at the time of the visit. Mr Donghi affirms there is no reason for him to doubt Mr McMahon provided the information as outlined by the Inspector. He further confirms that Mr McMahon did not indicate to him that he did not intend to conduct the work in the manner he described.[30]
  2. [33]
    It is the argument of Steadfast Constructions, as confirmed in the evidence of Mr Donghi, that the representations made by Mr McMahon did not reflect the way the work was meant to be done or was intended to be done the following day or any day. Mr Donghi referred to the organisational structure for Steadfast Constructions to demonstrate that Mr McMahon was insufficiently senior to have a proper understanding of the actual processes and it was incumbent on the Inspector to rely on more than what he said. Mr Donghi advises there were three layers of management above the supervisor that should have been consulted given the work would not proceed until the following day. Relying on the conversation with the Supervisor meant the Inspector did not have a true understanding of the intended use of the hoist which meant his conclusion could not be reasonable. This was expanded upon by Mr Donghi in the following way: 

And the way a task is thought or described to be performed on a day that it's not actually being conducted or hasn't been planned to be conducted until the next day, I think speaks to the issue in the sense that the management of the organisation, the photographic evidence showing that the lifting blocks were used and the email to Mr Ross the very next day showing the different method upon which the – the work was being carried out – it’s important in the sense that – that inspector Ross developed his belief on largely – well, even to be fair, considerably on the comments made by Paddy, without – with – without – without consultation with anyone in the managing team who would've been responsible for that activity the next day.[31]

  1. [34]
    In support of this contention, Steadfast Constructions pointed to the email sent by Mr Donghi to Inspector Ross on 11 September (reproduced above at [20]).
  2. [35]
    During cross-examination of Inspector Ross, Steadfast Constructions said that the significance of the email is that it ought to have alerted Inspector Ross to the possibility that he may have misunderstood the way the work was intended to be carried out: the 'email is very plainly worded to indicate that the work is being carried out as per a method not adopted by the prohibited tool'.[32]
  3. [36]
    The significance placed on this email by Steadfast Constructions is misconceived. Not only because it did not exist at the time the Inspector formed his belief and issued the notice, but also because this email is in direct response to the email sent the previous day by the Inspector attaching the prohibition notice and including the following direction:[33]

You must respond to a prohibition notice, advising me of compliance and providing evidence of the way the risk is managed…

The email from Mr Donghi provides required evidence that the prohibition notice has been displayed and indicates the risk is being managed in the following way:

 Our guys on site are lifting the steel into position with house raising blocks as per our SWMS.

  1. [37]
    The following exchange between Mr Donghi and Inspector Ross during cross-examination emphasises this point:

APPLICANT: The wording in the email, though, Inspector Ross, that – that explains or indicates to you that the work being carried out is not – not with a lifter?---Yep.

Okay. So the risk that was immediate and imminent the next day was ---? --- Mitigated.

---mitigated? --- However, before I intervened, the risk was there. And -um – if we come across an activity that the risk is present – imminent, immediate risk – in the legislation – uh – we can -  um – write a prohibition notice to make a – now, the reason why this – and you change the system of works is because I issued that prohibition notice. Now, if I hadn't issued that prohibition notice, I believe that work woulda gone ahead. And if I hadn't intervened, that work woulda got ahead and potentially workers woulda been put in harm's way – at serious risk.[34]

  1. [38]
    Under cross-examination Mr Donghi admitted he could not know with great specificity what tasks were being conducted at each project every day and how those tasks were being undertaken:

And so I'd suggest to you, Mr Donghi, that the basis of your assertion that the company was not going to use the lifter in the way described is because that's inconsistent with the company's safety policies? --- Fair – that's fair to say.

And you accept, don't you, that workers on construction sites sometimes do things that are inconsistent with their employer's safety policies? --- Yeah. Yep, absolutely.[35]

  1. [39]
    I agree with the submissions of the Regulator that the inquiries made by Inspector Ross on 10 September 2024 were 'reasonable in the anticipation of the exercise of a coercive power under the Work Health and Safety Act':[36]

The particular structure of section 195, subsection (1)(b) allows for precisely that scenario to occur and to support the issuing of a prohibition notice. And that is because what the evidence Mr Ross gathered on that day established at that time was that there was a piece of equipment on the site, there were very heavy steel beams weighing 120 to 200 kilos, and that the supervisor from the construction company intended to use that device to lift those beams the following day. It's plain that, in my submission, that that evidence is sufficient to support a belief – a reasonable belief that an activity may occur the following day, namely the activity being the lifting of the beams – the unsecured beams with the lifting device.

Mr Ross's evidence, based on his 19 years plus experience in the building industry, including, I think, 11 years as a work health and safety inspector, was that if that  lifter device had been used to lift beams in that way, he described the possibility of a seesawing effect, that the metal on the metal might slip, or that those beams might fall from the lifter. It's obvious, having regard to the size and weight of the beams, estimated to be up to 200 kilos, that if they had fallen in the vicinity of a worker operating the lifter, that worker would be exposed to an imminent or immediate risk of harm if struck by the beam.[37]

  1. [40]
    I note Steadfast Constructions submissions that issuing the prohibition notice may have the unintended consequence of limiting open conversation between on-site management and the Inspectorate but find it is not relevant to the central issue to be decided. Further while Mr McMahon may not have been the most senior representative of the company, he was the only representative supervising work on that day. There seems no reason for the Inspector to doubt the representations he made.  The conclusion that the risk of serious harm from falling beams if the equipment was used in the manner described would satisfy the existence of an imminent risk.

Conclusion

  1. [41]
    For these reasons I have determined that the basis for the Inspector's belief was reasonable in all of the circumstances at the time the prohibition notice was issued. I consider that had the activity occurred in the manner described prior to the issue of the notice workers engaged in the activity or near the activity would have been at risk of serious harm arising from the imminent risk of the beams falling. Information provided by Steadfast Constructions following the issuing of the Notice could have no impact on the validity of the notice at the time it was issued.
  2. [42]
    I order accordingly.

Order

  1. The Review Decision is confirmed. Prohibition Notice P1051598 was valid.

Footnotes

[1] Issuing a prohibition notice is a reviewable decision pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 223, Sch 2A.

[2] The decision letter dated 16 October 2024 refers to the decision as the Review Decision of 8 October 2024.

[3] Form 74, filed 15 November 2024, Schedule 1, 1. Pursuant to s 229E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Commission does not have the power to make such an order.

[4] Form 74, filed 15 November 2024, Schedule 1, 1.

[5] Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2) [2019] QIRC 133 4 [10] (VP O'Connor) ('Multiplex Constructions').

[6] T1-5, ll 39-41.

[7] Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 229D(2).

[8] [2024] QIRC 85.

[9] Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2024] QIRC 85, [22] (VP O'Connor) ('Seymour Whyte Constructions'), citing GJT Earthmoving Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2021] QIRC 306.

[10] Seymour Whyte Constructions [24] (VP O'Connor), citing Hunt J in Apollo Shower Screens Pty Ltd v Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation (1985) 1 NSWLR 561.

[11] Seymour Whyte Constructions [26] (VP O'Connor).

[12] Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2024] QIRC 85.

[13] Inspector Ross has been a Work Health and Safety Inspector for 13 years with 10 years previous experience in civil, commercial demolition and construction. Mr Donghi has been the Director of Steadfast Constructions for approximately 15 years. 

[14] T 1-5, l 45; T 1-6 ll 1-2.

[15] T 1-6 ll 31-34; T 1-21 ll 5-6.

[16] Exhibit 1, 23.

[17] T 1-6 ll 15 – 20; Exhibit 1, 24.

[18] Exhibit 1, 34.

[19] Explanatory Notes, Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 (Qld) 92.

[20] Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2024] QIRC 85, [113] (VP O'Connor).

[21] Multiplex Constructions [2019] QIRC 133.

[22] Ibid.

[23] T1-20 ll 40-46; T1-21 ll 1-6.

[24] T1-16 ll 21-46.

[25] T1-17 l 11.

[26] T1-17, ll 13-20.

[27] T 1-17 ll 32 – 46; T 1-18 ll 1-2.

[28] T 1-18 ll 7-19.

[29] Exhibit 1, 26 – 27.

[30] T1-35-36.

[31] T1-26, ll 6-15.

[32] T1-22, ll 9-10

[33] Exhibit 1, 24.

[34] T1-22, ll 43 – 45, T1-23 ll 1-10.

[35] T1-36 ll 7-12.

[36] T1-40 ll 10-12.

[37] T1-40 ll 46-47; T1-41 ll 1-16.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Steadfast Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No. 2)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 169

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Caddie IC

  • Date:

    02 Jul 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Apollo Shower Screens Pty Ltd v Building & Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation (1985) 1 NSWLR 561
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1985) 1 NSWLR 561
GJT Earthmoving Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2021] QIRC 306
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 306
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (No 2) [2019] QIRC 133
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 133
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 133
Cite 3 - [2019] QIRC 133
Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v the Regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 [2024] QIRC 85
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 85
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 85
Cite 3 - [2024] QIRC 85
Cite 4 - [2024] QIRC 85
Cite 5 - [2024] QIRC 85

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.