VOID - Voice of Industrial Death

10/09/2026

Charges have been laid. Our thoughts and prayers are with Adam Snell's family and friends.

28/07/2026

Farrell v Jackson [2026] SAET 87 (23 July 2026)

South Australian Employment Tribunal (Employment Court)

Mr Jackson (Jacksons Slashing) was operating a tractor-mounted slasher on 5 October 2023, while 2 bystanders including Mr Gatzopoulos, working nearby. Jackson operated the slasher only a few metres from them - even though the safety documents required people to be kept away and the manufacturer's documents identified a high-risk zone of up to 100 metres.

Tragically, a small piece of metal was ejected by the slasher and struck Mr Gatzopoulos in the head, penetrated his brain, and caused fatal injuries.

Jackson plead guilty to a Category 2 offence under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012, involving failure to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that people were not exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

The court found the risk was well known:
o Jackson's own safety documents identified the hazard.
o The manual warned debris could be expelled at speeds exceeding 300 km/h.
o The machine carried warning labels requiring strict exclusion zones.

The Court found the offending was of a very high level of objective seriousness and the fatality was an aggravating factor because the risk of severe injury or death was foreseeable.

The tragic death of Mr Gatzopoulos was readily preventable by a simple exclusion zone.

The Court also found Jackson failed to apply even his own safety measures and took no effective precautions on the day.

The Court took into account the early guilty plea and the defendant's cooperation with investigators, genuine remorse, apology to the victim's family, no criminal record, and a later strengthening of safety procedures - adopting a 100-metre exclusion zone with additional signage.

Penalty
The court set a starting fine of $100,000.
It was reduced by 40% for the guilty plea and contrition, then further reduced because of limited financial means to pay and therefore a risk of default.

Orders
o Fine: $30,000
o Compensation for funeral expenses: $19,967
o Victims of Crime levy: $424
o A conviction was recorded.

The Full Judgement

Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) - Hosted by University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Law

27/07/2026

This ... the first time South Australia"s new Industrial Manslaughter laws have been put to work.

Looking back to Daniel Madeley's death on 6 June 2004 - 20 years earlier at Die Mould Tooling - the frightening similarities? The factories operate in the same industry and around the corner from each other ...

When this young man lost his life, those similarities were not lost on me - we will be watching this one like a hawk.

24/03/2026

Prosecution Update - Farrell v Winona Way Pty Ltd as trustee for the Tea Tree Gully Hotel Trust trading as The Gully Public House & Garden [2026] SAET 33

A conviction is recorded against a company - the defendant operating some 14 hotels.

In this case the employee working at one of the hotels suffered very serious burns while refuelling an ethanol burner (against the manufacturer’s instructions). Charges related to a failure to adequately train employees in refuelling the burner – failure to supervise the process – failure to ensure manufacturer’s instructions were followed, and to utilise accessories needed.

The worker was directed to refuel the burner before it had cooled – causing it to ignite engulfing the worker in flames.

The Court Held that the offending falls within the high range and a conviction was recorded with a fine of $260,000 imposed. The defendant cooperated with the investigation and was contrite – a discount of 40% on the fine was therefore allowed.

A fine of $150,000 was imposed.

Gotta love these discounts. 😠

Read the decision here:

18/03/2026

This judgement is relevant to our families where a dependent (a child in this case) has suffered the traumatic loss of a parent and sadly, the surviving parent is unable to assist them in a dependency claim under workers compensation - in this case, due to mental health issues.

Our sincere condolences to Mr Smith's family - these are long and difficult legal battles that simply do nothing to help families through their time of grief. Yet - we should also acknowledge that each and every one of these judgements help others in defining the law and answering legal questions that often arise.

Smith v Employers Mutual Limited as agent for the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [2026] SAET 29

10/02/2026

This recent judgement relates to a successful appeal by a PCBU to a prosecution under the Work Health and Safety Act following a fatal workplace event.

Thoughts - One might have assumed the signage at the crush point had identified a catastrophic safety hazard lurking therein to *all parties* involved in the design and operation of the plant - and perhaps might have been enough 'notice' to turn one's mind to the hazard, in order to contemplate it seriously, before letting a new trainee near it.

Our sincere condolences to Lee Ravlich's family. This would have been incredibly difficult to come to terms with.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dial A Tow Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell [2026] SAET 11

Appeal against a conviction under ss 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 upon remitter by the Court of Appeal – the Trial Deputy President Magistrate found a charge of a contravention of both s 19 and s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 proven – this appeal upon remitter is by way of review and has concerned primarily whether the installation of a pressure-sensitive device or devices was a reasonably practicable measure for the appellant to have implemented in order to minimise the risk of a crushing injury between the headboard of a tow truck and a retracting tray to its resting position –

HELD – errors were made by the Trial Deputy President Magistrate requiring a review of the evidence by the Full Bench –

HELD – the warning signs provided by the designer and manufacturer of the tilt tray mechanism, AHRNS, were insufficient for the appellant, given its knowledge and experience in working with tow trucks, to discharge its obligation in accordance with s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2014 to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its employees –

HELD – the relevance of the recommendations of the third party subcontractor AHRNS was to be considered in context including it having provided the tilt mechanism without an engineering solution to an identified crush hazard and the specific measure of the introduction of a pressure-sensitive device which the respondent accepted upon appeal was the sole basis of the finding of guilty by the Deputy President Magistrate –

HELD – the evidence gave rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether, had the appellant sought the opinion of an independent safety expert, the installation of a pressure-sensitive device or a series of pressure-sensitive devices would have been recommended –

HELD – the finding of guilt is to be set aside and to be substituted with a verdict of acquittal.

11/12/2025

11/12/2025