Prosecution Details

Being an employer, did not so far as is practicable provide and maintain a working environment in which the employees of the employer are not exposed to hazards and by that contravention caused the death of an employee, contrary to sections 19(1) and 19A(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984

Introduction

On 22 November 2021, a worker (the Victim) died after suffering a traumatic head injury when he was assisting in the lowering of a drawbridge ramp (Ramp) attached to a sea container. The victim was an employee of PAWS Construction and Maintenance Pty Ltd (PAWS). As at 22 November 2021, the victim had been employed by PAWS for only three weeks.

The incident occurred at a site in North Coogee (Site). The victim and his supervisor, (Supervisor), were getting a sea container, that had been converted into a sales suite (Sea Container), ready for opening (the Works).

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd (M Construction) engaged PAWS to complete the Works. The Works included the lowering of the sea container Ramp (and other works including cleaning up the area).

M Construction did not own or have exclusive control of the Site; it was using part of it as a laydown area with the owner’s consent for the construction works M Construction was performing on the adjacent site.

The Sea Container

M Construction was instructed by the owner of the Site to relocate the Sea Container to the Site and set it up so it could be used as a display unit to promote a residential development being constructed by M Construction on the adjacent site.

M Construction did not own the sea container to which the Ramp was attached and was not involved in its ongoing maintenance. Setting up the Sea Container was not a job that formed part of M Construction’s core expertise (which was project managing the construction of medium to large scale residential projects).

However, M Construction did commission the fabrication of the Sea Container including the installation of a winch (Winch) to lower and raise the Ramp in 2014.

Raising and lowering the Ramp

Between 2014 and the Incident, M Construction had performed the task of setting up the Sea Container on three occasions. On each of these occasions, M Construction had engaged a crane company to move the Sea Container and lower the Ramp.

One employee of M Construction had working knowledge of using the Winch to raise the Ramp. This employee had raised the Ramp on the three previous occasions the Sea Container has been in use, to prepare it to be moved.

At the time of the Incident, that employee had resigned from M Construction, and he was working on another project in another location.

At the time M Construction received instructions to set up the Sea Container, the Winch was not working and could not be used to lower and raise the Ramp.

Engagement of PAWS

M Construction engaged PAWS to perform the task of setting up the Sea Container, including assessing the risks of doing so and devising an appropriate work method.

PAWS had extensive skills and experience in high-risk activities and significant experience “landing” sea containers in his capacity as a dogman moving sea containers onto the deck of offshore oil rigs, including experience:

13.1.      building ramps in-situ (not hinged mechanisms);

13.2.      observing the lowering and raising of hinged ramps like the Ramp by the use of hand winches;

13.3.      lowering and raising platform components on oil rigs using hydraulic means; and

13.4.      with hinged mechanisms such as trailers, in a general sense, but not in a work context.

The Supervisor had done regular jobs for M Construction for at least three years. He often performed jobs that involved problems that other contractors could not fix.

On 15, 16 and 17 November 2021, M Construction sent the supervisor emails containing the requirements for the task of setting up the Sea Container (including lowering the Ramp) and photos of the Sea Container with the Ramp in the raised position and with the Ramp in its lowered position.

Incident

On 22 November 2021, M Construction inducted the supervisor and the victim, conducted an inspection with the supervisor of the Sea Container and the area around it (thereby giving the supervisor an opportunity to ask questions or raise any issues regarding the Works), and provided the supervisor and the victim with PPE (including hard hats). The induction included instructions to the effect that minimum PPE requirements include hard hats and that it is mandatory for all workers to sign on to their task specific safe work method statements and job safety analysis.

During the inspection, the supervisor asked questions regarding the Site and the Works. He did not ask any questions regarding the Ramp or the Winch or indicate that he had any concerns or uncertainty in relation to lowering the Ramp.

During his inspection of the Ramp, the supervisor identified a spring mechanism at the base of the Ramp that he believed would act to keep the Ramp upright if the pins holding it in place were removed.

Before starting Works, the supervisor and the victim performed a JSA as M Construction required them to do. In the JSA, they identified the drop zone under the Ramp as a hazard and that they needed to avoid the drop zone.

Following this, the supervisor and the victim set about the task of lowering the Ramp. The Ramp was held in place flush to the side of the sea container by two pins.

The first task was to remove the first pin on the top left-hand side of the Ramp. That pin was removed. Prior to the supervisor removing the second pin, he instructed the victim to stand to the left side of the Ramp out of the drop zone of the Ramp with his right hand applying a light amount of pressure to feel where the Ramp was and to push it in a little bit so that it takes the tension off the pin, if necessary.

 At approximately 9:40am, the supervisor removed the second pin from the top right- hand side of the Ramp. Upon the second pin being removed, the Ramp fell in freefall to the ground. The force of the falling Ramp propelled the victim away from the side of the sea container and to the footpath in front of the ramp.

The victim was struck by the Ramp as it fell and also struck the back of his head on the concrete footpath upon landing. His left foot was trapped under the Ramp.

First aid was rendered to the victim by first responders. Shortly after ambulance officers attended the site the victim was declared life extinct by paramedics as his head injury was deemed to be incompatible with life.

Knowledge of the Hazard

It is common industry knowledge that objects will fall if a restraint mechanism holding them in place is released.

The Ramp is composed of composite wooden decking on a steel frame. The dimensions of the Ramp are 2380mm high and 4715mm long. The hinged weight of the Ramp was approximately 250kg.

M Construction had corporate knowledge that the function of the Winch was to lower and raise the Ramp. M Construction did not provide instructions to PAWS to only lower the Ramp using mechanical means.

Practicable Measures

Prior to and as at 22 November 2021, it was reasonably practicable for M Construction and PAWS to have instructed the persons engaged to lower the Ramp to do so only using mechanical means.  This would have reduced the risk of the sea container falling in an uncontrolled manner, and the victim suffering fatal injury.

Subsequent Changes

Following the Incident, M Construction removed the Ramp from the sea container thereby removing the risk associated with raising and lowering the Ramp. M Construction is no longer trading.

The Offender plead guilty and was convicted on 12 September 2025.  The matter was sentenced on 21 November 2025 where the Magistrate issued a fine of $350,000 and ordered costs of $6615.50.