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 contractor Mr Cox. The Applicant was wrapping pallets and requested Mr Cox 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2012/2012fcafc0168Want 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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →