A fall, a shutdown, then more exposure...
A safety fix needs to survive the next stage of the job. A Victorian construction appeal provides a sharp reminder that closing out one dangerous area does not establish that the next work area is ready.
What changed on appeal
WorkSafe VIC reported on 01 Oct 26 that the Melbourne County Court had replaced the sentences of three companies involved in a townhouse development in Footscray, Victoria. On 23 Sep 26, KZ Construction Group Pty Ltd and Kerimov Constructions Pty Ltd were each convicted and fined $40,000, while Calibre Construction Victoria Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $20,200.
The original May 2026 outcomes followed guilty pleas and involved fines without conviction totalling $50,000. The appeal produced convictions and combined fines of $100,200, with the original costs orders retained.
In April 2024, an apprentice fell 3.24 metres through a skylight opening. Inspectors issued prohibition notices, and guardrails and void covers were installed before work resumed. In June 2024, an inspector found workers six metres above the ground with inadequate fall protection, prompting further notices and additional guardrails.
The release identifies suitable guardrails and covered openings as reasonably practicable precautions. Calibre also admitted a failure to work in accordance with a safe work method statement, or SWMS.
A completed action is only useful if exposure stays controlled
Safety Jon’s analysis is that corrective action needs both a local check and a wider check. The local check asks whether the identified opening or edge has been protected; the wider check asks where the same exposure exists elsewhere or will emerge as construction progresses.
For example, a supervisor may verify a protected first-floor work area today, while tomorrow’s task takes a different crew onto the next level. That earlier verification tells the crew very little about the new location unless the authorisation process checks the new edges, openings, access route and task.
This is where an action register can give a misleading sense of completion. A photograph of a guardrail can establish that something was installed at a particular place and time, but it cannot by itself establish coverage across every active area, suitability for the task, or continued integrity after other trades have worked nearby.
What should have stopped this?
The practical control point is before people gain access to the next exposed work area. A person with the relevant competence and authority should confirm that the required protection is installed, suitable and complete, and that unresolved defects prevent the task from starting.
That process should identify who installs the controls, who checks them and who can release the area for use. If the work changes, a guardrail is moved, or an opening is created, the previous release needs to be reconsidered before people rely on it.
The check should include the person carrying out the task, not only the person maintaining the site records. Ask them to explain their access route and work position, then check whether those movements remain within the protected area throughout the job.
Choose the protection before writing the instruction
WorkSafe Victoria's falls guidance starts with eliminating the exposure where possible, including doing work from the ground. It then addresses passive protection such as guardrails and scaffolds, followed by work positioning, fall arrest and lower-order controls.
The useful planning question is whether the task can be completed without exposing someone to an unprotected edge or opening. Selecting a harness creates further questions about system design, anchorage, clearance and rescue; it does not remove the need to decide whether a stronger control is reasonably practicable.
Three questions for the next site walk
First, identify the next location where people will work at height and ask what must be complete before access is permitted. Check the actual location, including the route workers take to reach it, rather than limiting the discussion to the planned work position.
Second, ask how the site detects a control that has been removed, damaged or left incomplete. A useful answer names the check, the responsible person and what happens to the task when a defect is found.
Third, follow one recently closed corrective action through to the work it was intended to protect. Look for evidence that the action was checked in use and that related areas were considered, rather than treating an uploaded photograph as the end of the process.
The limits of this case note
This article relies on WorkSafe Victoria's published account of a Victorian sentencing appeal. Full appeal reasons were not available for this review, so the article does not attribute additional legal reasoning to the court or present the outcome as a new national rule.
The suggested control checks and diagram are Safety Jon’s practical analysis. They are not a reconstruction of the site or a finding about how any particular supervisor made decisions.
Primary sources and further guidance
Prepared from the primary sources below and reviewed on 02 Oct 26. Check for subsequent court or regulator updates before relying on the procedural status.
Comments