skip navigation

Prosecution Details

Offender Hanssen Pty Ltd (ACN: 058 600 427)


Swipe to see more information
Charge Charge Number Offence Date Date Convicted Regulation Section Penalty Provision Penalty Imposed Date Sentenced
1 PE35847/2019 Between 19/05/2018 and 2/09/2018 11th October 2019 3.88J(1)(a) 1.16(2)(b)(ii) $47,000.00 (Global) 11th October 2019
2 PE35848/2019 Between 19/05/2018 and 4/09/2018 11th October 2019 3A(1)(b)(ii)(II) $47,000.00 (Global) 11th October 2019
Description of Breach(es)

Charge 1- Being a person who, at a construction site where tilt-up work was proposed to be done, was a person having control of that work place did not ensure that the work was directly supervised by a person who had completed an approved course for managers and supervisors in the construction industry concerning tilt-up work: contrary to regulation 3.88J(1)(a) and 1.16 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

Charge 2- Being a person to whom improvement notice No. 40500122 was issued by an inspector duly appointed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, failed to comply with the improvement notice within the time specified therein; contrary to Sections 48(4) and 54 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

Background Details

The Accused was the main contractor for the Vue Tower project located at 63 Adelaide Terrace in East Perth involving the construction of a 34 story residential apartment complex.

This structure consisted of tilt-up type concrete wall panels cast into the suspended slabs (floors) of the building.  In May 2018 the second floor of the high-rise apartment building, consisting of Bubbledeck concrete floor panels, was being fixed into place.

The Accused had engaged a variety of labour hire companies including apprenticeship agencies, to supply workers for the site.

Panel collapse

On Saturday, 19 May 2018, an employee of a construction labour hire company was working as an unlicensed surveyor involved in inspecting and coordinating construction activities at the site.

The unlicensed surveyor was working with an apprentice boiler maker (employed by another labour hire company).

At this time the eastern wall of the first floor of the building consisted of tilt-up concrete panels being supported, in a temporarily braced position, by two temporary props bolted to the internal face of each panel and to the concrete floor.

The unlicensed surveyor decided to use the site’s tower crane to take the weight of a tilt-up concrete panel measuring approximately 3 metres x 4 metres and weighing 3.88 tonnes, so that they could adjust the panel back into line with the rest of the panel wall.

The unlicensed surveyor and the apprentice boiler maker unbolted the timber connecting the panel concerned to the panel below.

Then, as the unlicensed surveyor was leaving the area to arrange for the tower crane to carry out the task, he instructed the apprentice boiler maker to locate the socket needed for unbolting the temporary props.

After the unlicensed surveyor had left the area to schedule the panel to be lifted, the apprentice boiler maker located the socket, and rattle gun, and unbolted the temporary props.

The panel fell from the building into a car park in the adjacent property, crushing two cars. Fortunately no persons were injured.


The tilt-up work occurring at the site was not being supervised by a person who had completed the approved Supervise Tilt-up Work course. This is a statutory requirement under regulation 3.88J(1)(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

At the time of the collapse, five of the site’s management personnel including the Site Administrator and the Site Foreman had been enrolled with a registered training organisation called Australian Training Management in order to complete an approved Supervise Tilt-up Work course but none had actually completed the course.

The Site Foreman advised that this was due to a requirement within the course to demonstrate a lift of a concrete panel of at least 10 tonnes, and the Accused does not use panels of that size in its construction methodology.

The lift of a 10 tonne panel requirement was clearly communicated to the Accused by Australian Training Management on 20 March 2018 with the Accused’s booking confirmation for the course.

Prior to the panel collapse the Site Foreman had discussed with the Accused’s Managing Director Mr Hanssen several times the fact that the Accused’s personnel at the site had not completed the course.

Prior to the panel collapse, no attempt had been made by the Accused to:

a.             arrange a solution so that the Accused’s staff could be assessed as competent; or

b.             engage a competent person already qualified to supervise the tilt-up work at the site.

The Improvement Notice

On 19 July 2018 a WorkSafe Inspector issued improvement notice 40500122 to the Accused for a contravention of regulation 3.88J.(1)(a). The notice was received by the Site Administrator. The date for compliance on the improvement notice was 26 July 2018.

On 25 July 2018 the Accused requested an extension of time to 24 August 2018 to achieve compliance. The WorkSafe Western Australia Commissioner agreed to modify the date for compliance of the notice to 24 August 2018.

Compliance with the notice was not achieved until 5 September 2018 when the Site Administrator became the first of the Accused’s staff at the Vue Tower project to be certified as competent by completing an approved Supervise Tilt-up Work course.

Compliance with the improvement notice was not achieved prior to that date for instance through engaging a competent person already qualified to supervise the tilt-up work at the site.

Previous offence in 2009

In 2009 the Accused was convicted of two breaches of regulation 3.88J(1)(b), following another collapse of a concrete panel at another East Perth construction site, for failing to ensure that persons involved in the work had completed an approved course for persons involved in tilt-up work.  The maximum fine applicable for a breach of regulation 3.88J(1)(b) at that time was $50,000.  The Accused was fined $20,000 per breach ($40,000 total).

Previous Improvement Notice in 2011

On 26 May 2011 the Accused was issued an improvement notice concerning a breach of 3.88J(1)(a).

Outcome Summary

The Accused plead guilty to both charges.   The Magistrate issued a global fine of $47,000.00 and ordered costs of $1519.00.

Court Magistrates Court of Western Australia - Perth
Costs $1519.00 (Global)

Search the records of all successful prosecutions taken by WorkSafe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 since 1st January 2005. Searching and indexing of this database is limited to convictions for offences against the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 committed on or after 1 January 2005, when the statutory offence and penalty regimes were significantly amended.

Offences committed prior to 1 January 2005, while of limited comparative relevance, can be accessed via the following link.