The NSW District Court has imposed a fine of $180,000 on a company that provided high-pressure water-jetting services to the Batemans Bay bridge project in 2021 (SafeWork NSW v Silver Raven Pty Ltd [2025]). This case emphasises the importance of ensuring all workers engaging high risk activities follow appropriate safety measures to avoid workplace injuries and legal consequences.
Case background: SafeWork NSW v Silver Raven Pty Ltd
John Holland engaged Silver Raven Pty Ltd, to perform hydro demolition to remove the existing bridge and piers after the new bridge had been built.
Two workers were tasked with high-pressure blasting through old hardwood timbers, previously treated with cyanide, located in the existing bridge piers. The work involved placing the nozzle of the Jetstream jetting gun into a hole in the concrete pier and jet blasting the timber structures inside it.
During this work, the metal connector between the gun assembly and the hose failed, causing the hose to blow away from the gun. The worker holding the gun dropped it and the hose struck him, resulting in serious injuries to his right arm and ongoing incapacity over the following years.
The Court's decision
In hearing Silver Raven's guilty plea, the Court learned that the Kevlar protective equipment that would otherwise have been worn for this task as required by the standard safe work method statement (SWMS) was not used. The SWMS had been amended given concerns about the proximity to the ocean and the potential hazards of falling in. However, there was no adequate hose restraint system in place at the time of the incident. Further, the Kevlar sleeve or safety shroud that was designed to protect the user from a jet of high-pressure water, was not properly attached.
The Court formed the view that the company had a detailed and comprehensive safety system, which if implemented as intended, would have prevented the incident. The Court noted that the company had previously been convicted and fined in 2019 for a similar safety offence.
Key takeaways
This case serves as a reminder that all workers involved in high-risk activities must be trained in the appropriate safety procedures and be competent in undertaking high risk tasks. Further, an appropriate supervisor must be present to ensure that if documented safe procedures are not being followed, the work does not proceed. In this case, PPE and safety controls, such as safety shrouds, were available but were not used. It is critical that any decision to not use PPE is addressed through higher order controls.
This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.
