No One Had to Fall for $700,000 to Fall

On 12 Feb 26, the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court fined Proform Roofing $700,000 for nine working at height offences. No fatality. No catastrophic injury. No headline bloodshed.

Just repeated non-compliance.

The prosecution was brought by WorkSafe Victoria under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and associated Regulations. The company was sentenced ex parte after failing to appear. The breaches centred on the absence of passive fall prevention, the lack of compliant Safe Work Method Statements for high-risk construction work, and repeated disregard of prior inspector engagement.

Let that sink in.

There does not need to be a broken spine, a funeral, or a coronial inquest for six-figure penalties to land.

The Lesson

Regulators prosecute risk exposure, not just injury outcomes.

Section 21 of the Victorian Act (s19 of the WHS Act) imposes a duty to provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health so far as is reasonably practicable.

The Regulations are explicit; if there is a risk of a fall of more than 2 metres in high-risk construction work, duty holders must implement fall prevention measures. Passive controls, such as guardrails and scaffolding, sit above administrative paperwork in the hierarchy.

If inspectors attend multiple sites and observe workers on roofs without edge protection, harness systems, or a current SWMS, the evidentiary picture writes itself. The absence of injury does not dilute the breach. In fact, it often strengthens the inference that the risk was systemic and tolerated.

Nine offences are not a paperwork glitch. It is a governance failure.

Blue Pill or Red Pill

This is the standard choice for duty holders.

Blue pill: treat inspections as theatre. Nod politely, promise to fix it later, hope no one gets hurt, and assume the regulator will lose interest.

Red pill: treat every improvement notice as a free consultancy report from someone who can prosecute you. Address the hazard at its origin, document the control architecture, verify the implementation, and audit for recurrence.

The silly-games approach only works until it doesn't. And when it does not, the prizes are not novelty mugs. They are convictions, fines, reputational damage, and enforceable scrutiny.

Practical Takeaways for Duty Holders

1. If the work exceeds 2 metres in height during construction, use engineered edge protection unless you can demonstrate it is unfeasible. Administrative controls are not your primary defence.

2. SWMS are not decorative. They must be task-specific, current, communicated, and actually followed. A folder in the ute does not satisfy the Regulation.

3. Repeated observations across sites signal systemic failure. If an inspector can see a pattern in three visits, so can a court.

4. Engagement history matters. Prior advice, improvement notices, and compliance discussions will form part of the narrative if you face a Magistrate.

5. Injury absence is not mitigation. The offence is exposing workers to risk, not the injury outcome itself.

Final Word

This case should recalibrate the risk model for those who still believe that prosecutions require a body on the ground.

The legal test is exposure to risk.

The financial consequences of ignoring it can comfortably sit north of half a million dollars.

Play silly games, win silly prizes.

In Victoria, that prize currently looks like $700,000 and a conviction record.

Choose your pill carefully.

SJ