Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd v Hanel

Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of the District Court which had upheld a conviction against it for breaching work health and safety legislation. The dispute arose from an incident where an employee, Mr Hicks, who had recently obtained an HR class heavy vehicle driver's licence after training in a manual transmission truck, was assigned to drive a vacuum truck with an automatic transmission. Despite a brief "buddy system" and a subsequent driving assessment, Mr Hicks was permitted to drive the automatic truck alone shortly after commencing employment.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal judge had erred in fact or law in upholding the finding that Cleanaway had breached its duty of care under work health and safety legislation. Specifically, the court considered whether the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Hicks was exposed to a risk of harm due to Cleanaway's alleged failures in its training and supervision protocols for new drivers operating heavy vehicles. This involved examining the adequacy of the "buddy system," the driver assessment process, and the overall procedures for transitioning new drivers to solo operation of company vehicles.

The Supreme Court, comprising Livesey P, Lovell and Bleby JJ, found that the appeal judge's findings were open on the evidence presented. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the conclusion that Cleanaway had not adequately assessed Mr Hicks's competency to operate the automatic transmission truck, particularly given his recent training on a manual vehicle and the limited duration and nature of the "buddy system" and subsequent assessment. The court applied the principles of work health and safety legislation, which impose a positive duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their workers. The court concluded that the appeal judge had not erred in fact or law regarding the exposure element of the offence.

Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.