Skip to main content
FCAFederal Court of Australia · 22 November 2012

the Applicant v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Limited

Citation: [2012] FCAFC 168

At a glance

Penalty
$120,000
Employees affected
1

What happened

In March 2008, the Applicant suffered a foot injury at a Post Logistics Australasia Pty Limited warehouse while near a forklift operated by a contractor. The Applicant was wrapping pallets and requested the contractor move a pallet down to allow her to reach it. During this process, the forklift ran over her foot. The company used Landmark Industrial Recruitment for labour supply. It was agreed that Australia Post held a majority shareholding in Post Logistics Australasia. Both parties admitted liability for the incident.

What was decided

The Full Federal Court allowed an appeal against a previous decision regarding a penalty amount. They set aside the original $80,000 penalty and ordered Post Logistics Australasia to pay $120,000 to the Commonwealth. The court found the primary judge erred by not considering deterrence when setting the penalty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Court also considered issues regarding foreseeability of risk and the Respondent’s admission about supervision.

What it means for employers

Employers must consider the relevance of deterrence when determining penalties for breaches of occupational health and safety legislation. They should ensure adequate training, instruction, and supervision are provided to contractors and employees, particularly concerning forklift operation and pedestrian safety. A failure to provide these can be considered in sentencing appeals.

What it means for employees

Employees working near machinery like forklifts need to be aware of potential hazards and follow safe work practices. Employers have a responsibility to provide adequate training and supervision to minimise risks.

Want this applied to your situation?

Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.

underpaymentgeneral-protectionspenalty-ratessham-contractingmodern-award-variationlong-service-leavesexual-harassment

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2012/2012fcafc0168

Want more cases like this?

FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

Get notified on new Fair Work cases

Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.

Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections

All cases