SafeWork NSW v Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWIC 17

Industrial Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

SafeWork NSW v Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 17

Hearing dates:

15 October 2025

Date of orders:

24 October 2025

Decision date:

24 October 2025

Before:

Paingakulam J

Decision:

(1) I convict Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd of the offence as charged.

(2) I impose a fine of $150,000.

(3) Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW — work health and safety — offences — category 2 — fall from height — formwork — worker not adhering to established safety systems — no elevated work platform — low range of objective seriousness

SENTENCING — relevant factors on sentence — objective seriousness — deterrence — aggravating factors — mitigating factors — parity — appropriate penalty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Fines Act 1996 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51; [1988] HCA 67

BW v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 176

Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25

Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39

Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96

R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102

R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242

R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309

R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432

R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412

SafeWork NSW v Menai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 8

SafeWork NSW v PRW Services Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Peter Whalan [2024] NSWDC 16

Unity Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
A Sivanathan (Prosecutor)
N Read (Offender)

Solicitors:
SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Wotton Kearney (Offender)

File Number(s):

2024/416238

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd (Bridgeworks) undertakes turn-key solutions for road, rail and over water span structures. It was engaged by Menai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd (Menai Civil) to assist with the construction of a bridge at a site in Huntley, New South Wales (the site). Bridgeworks contracted with Topdeck Formwork Services Pty Ltd (Topdeck) for the supply of formworkers for the site. On 11 November 2022, Mr Michael Bagnato, a contractor engaged by Topdeck, suffered a fall while stripping formwork at the site, sustaining serious injuries to his right leg.

2. Bridgeworks appeared for sentence after pleading guilty to an offence charged in an Amended Summons filed on 30 June 2025 that as a person who had a work health and safety duty pursuant to s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed Michael Bagnato to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the WHS Act.

3. The risk particularised at paragraph 11 of Annexure A to the Summons is as follows:

“The risk was the risk of Mr Bagnato, suffering death or serious injury as a result of falling from a height while undertaking formwork stripping at the Site.”

4. By its plea of guilty, Bridgeworks accepts that it could have taken the following reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or at least minimise the reasonably foreseeable risk:

“(a) Implementing and enforcing a safe system of work for the stripping of formwork on abutments at the Site, which:

(i). Specified that an Elevated Work Platform or a Platform Ladder … was required to be used to detach the formwork from the abutment and connect the chains from the excavator to the formwork; and

(b) Providing Mr Bagnato, with adequate supervision in relation to the stripping of formwork.”

5. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 17,315 penalty units ($1,860,843).

Facts

6. The prosecutor tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts. I have taken this document into account in coming to an appropriate sentence. What follows is a brief summary of the facts relevant to the offence to permit an understanding of the sentence imposed.

Background

7. Bridgeworks was contracted by Menai Civil to assist with the construction of a bridge at the site. Bridgeworks engaged Topdeck, as needed, to provide formworkers. Mr Bagnato was engaged by Topdeck to undertake formwork stripping at the site. He had approximately eight years of experience in the construction and formwork industry and commenced working at the site in around August 2022.

8. Other workers at the site included Menai Civil’s Site Supervisor Mr Jeff Stewart and Bridgeworks’ Site Supervisor, Mr Tobias Buchanan. Mr Buchanan had been working for Bridgeworks for 16 years. Mr Jake Mather, a formworker who had been contracted to Topdeck since about November 2021, was also present on site.

9. Prior to the project commencing, Menai Civil and Bridgeworks had an initial meeting with the principal contractor on site, Stocklands Development Pty Ltd (Stocklands), in which the works, construction methodology and safety issues were discussed. Bridgeworks had a four-metre platform ladder, extension ladders, harnesses and a static line available for use at the site.

The incident

10. Mr Bagnato arrived at the site on the morning of 11 November 2022 and signed onto both the Menai Civil and Bridgeworks Toolbox Meeting sheets. During the daily pre-start meeting, Mr Buchanan and Mr Stewart discussed the works that would be occurring on the day, including the beginning of the removal of formwork on the southern abutment of the bridge.

11. The workers stripped one side of the abutment before lunchtime. On inspection, Mr Stewart observed that the work was proceeding in accordance with the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) and that Mr Bagnato was working from a platform ladder. After lunch the workers attended to the other side of the abutment. Mr Bagnato accessed the top of the southern abutment using an extension ladder from where he attached wire chains between a 26t excavator and the form soldiers. Mr Scott Raybould was operating the excavator while Mr Bagnato was loosening the main screws, and Mr Mather remained at the bottom of the abutment.

12. At 2:20pm, after attaching the chains from the excavator, Mr Bagnato began to physically shake the formwork in an attempt to separate it from the cement. Once the formwork separated, Mr Bagnato lost balance and fell from the abutment. Paramedics were called and attended to Mr Bagnato, who suffered serious injuries including a compound fracture to his right lower leg and a broken tibia and fibular.

Legal obligations and guidance material

13. Clause 78 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) (WHS Regulation) requires a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to manage the risk of a fall in the vicinity of an edge over which a person could fall. Clause 79 of the WHS Regulation requires a PCBU that cannot eliminate the risk of a fall to minimise it by providing adequate protection, including by use of a fall prevention device such as a temporary work platform.

14. There was also a significant amount of guidance material available to Bridgeworks. SafeWork NSW’s “Code of Practice – Formwork” (March 2021) contains information about how to manage the risks associated with formwork. It relevantly provides the following guidance material to PCBUs:

1. Risks associated with formwork are to be managed using a “hierarchy of control” – measures from the highest level of protection and reliability through to the lowest. Where reasonably practicable, hazards must be eliminated. If elimination is not reasonably practicable, the risk must be minimised so far as is reasonably practicable. Duty holders must regularly review and revise control measures.

2. As well as consulting with the principal contractor, any contractor altering and stripping formwork should assess the risks involved and identify measures to prevent them from materialising. These include, but are not limited to providing a documented SWMS and assessing hazardous manual handling tasks, minimising the working heights for persons stripping formwork and stripping formwork in accordance with a structural engineer’s guidance or with guidance from a relevant work standard (AS 3610 series).

3. Information, training and instruction must cover the nature of the work, associated risks and control measures to be implemented. A PCBU must ensure that anyone undertaking construction work has completed general construction induction training and is competent to do the work safely.

4. Controls such as handrails, edge protection, perimeter protection screens and temporary catch platforms can minimise the risk of a fall.

5. It is recommended to use guardrails and handrails that have been designed and engineered as edge protection systems in accordance with “AS 4994.1: Temporary Edge Protection – General Requirements”.

6. Stripping and dismantling formwork should be carried out in an orderly, systematic and progressive manner so that the deck is gradually removed.

15. Safe Work Australia’s “General Guide for Formwork and Falsework” (July 2014) contains information about how to manage risks involved in undertaking formwork and falsework. It states that when dismantling formwork and falsework, workers should follow the designer or manufacturer’s instructions, provide suitable manual or mechanical component handling, maintain working platforms at least 450mm wide at the level of dismantling, maintain a full working platform below the dismantling level and remove any fall protection components at the last possible stage as the dismantling progresses.

16. Safe Work Australia’s “Formwork and Falsework Information Sheet” (July 2014) also contains information regarding how to manage risks associated with formwork and falsework activities, including the use of edge protection and PPE to mitigate the risk of falls.

17. Finally, SafeWork NSW’s “Code of Practice – Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces” (August 2019) contains information about falls from heights generally. It discusses identifying fall hazards, providing adequate protection and minimising any remaining risks so far as is reasonably practicable by implementing administrative controls.

Systems of work prior to the incident

18. At the time of the incident, Bridgeworks had in place the following systems of work:

1. A Project Safety Plan that included information on the induction process, Toolbox Talks, personal protective equipment (PPE), safe work permits, subcontractors, safety audits and incident reporting and investigation.

2. A Project Quality Plan that included information on responsibilities of site managers or foremen, induction training and monitoring subcontractors.

3. A Construction Method Statement that included specific sections related to working at heights and contained a work methodology requiring handrails for enclosed work areas and harnesses for areas that are not fully enclosed to address the identified hazard of falling.

4. Multiple SWMSs covering different aspects of the work, one of which was SWMS No. 3, “Substructure Construction” dated 2 August 2022, which was supplied to Topdeck prior to the works commencing. This SWMS identified the risk of falling from height when removing formwork shutters and set out various controls, including using elevated work platforms (EWP) encapsulated by barriers. Mr Bagnato signed this SWMS on 18 October 2022.

19. Bridgeworks participated in Menai Civil’s daily pre-start meetings to discuss the planned work, participants’ roles and presenting hazards and provided a site supervisor each day. At the time of the incident that was Mr Buchanan, who is highly experienced and holds certificates in high-risk work and safe working at heights, but he was in the site office.

20. Bridgeworks achieved accreditation of its occupational health and safety management system for civil construction of road and rail bridges (ISO 45001:2018) on 28 January 2021. All workers had recently completed working at height training. New workers were required to undertake the Menai Civil induction process, and Mr Bagnato did so on 18 October 2022.

Systems of work after the incident

21. Following the incident, Bridgeworks conducted an internal investigation. It then developed and documented a new work methodology that included the use of EWPs to remove formwork. Toolbox Talks now include regular SWMS workshops. All subcontractors are required to be trained in working from heights. In addition, Bridgeworks attends monthly safety meetings with Menai Civil and Stocklands to prepare for changing high risk work environments.

22. Bridgeworks has developed a new Safe Working Procedure for erecting and dismantling formwork to accompany the Construction Method Statement and SWMS. The revised SWMS was reviewed and accepted by Menai Civil. Senior management conduct yearly reviews of the Working and Heights Procedure. Bridgeworks has also developed an Operational Procedure Handbook which contains all updated procedures, including onsite takeaways which are incorporated into weekly Toolbox Talks.

Offender’s case on sentence

23. Bridgeworks read and relied on the affidavit of Joseph Tower affirmed 24 September 2025. The following is a summary of his unchallenged evidence, in addition to matters already set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

24. Mr Tower is the Managing Director of Bridgeworks. He is responsible for Bridgeworks’ operations and performance, with shared responsibility for work health and safety compliance, human resources, project management, finance and administration. He has over 40 years of experience in bridge construction and civil engineering.

Expression of remorse and contrition

25. On behalf of Bridgeworks, Mr Tower accepted responsibility for the company’s failure to comply with its duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act and acknowledged that this failure was a substantial cause of Mr Bagnato being exposed to a risk of death or serious injury. He apologised both to the Court and Mr Bagnato.

26. Mr Tower stated that Bridgeworks is committed to providing a safe workplace for workers and persons who might be affected by its operations. He also stated that Bridgeworks is confident that the steps it has taken following the incident will prevent a similar incident from occurring. This is Bridgeworks’ first serious incident, and prior to this incident, the company had never been issued an Improvement Notice by SafeWork NSW.

27. Immediately after the incident Bridgeworks contacted Mr Bagnato and Topdeck to receive an update regarding Mr Bagnato’s injuries. Mr Tower offered him assistance both in the period immediately after the incident as well as at several points after his discharge from hospital.

About Bridgeworks

28. Bridgeworks was registered as a company in 2007 but has been operating in infrastructure construction through different entities since 1993. It is a family business owned by Mr Tower. His son Mr Daniel Tower is the company’s senior engineer, and his wife is the administration manager. It is a Transport for NSW prequalified road and bridge specialist contractor, with its core work consisting of infrastructure projects for the NSW Government and local councils.

29. Bridgeworks employs Mr Tobias (Toby) Buchanan as the Site Manager. Mr Buchanan is responsible for supervising onsite works to ensure they are being carried out safely and in accordance with documented construction methodology. He has approximately 15 years’ experience within the infrastructure construction industry, has led onsite crews of up to 50 people and holds various safety qualifications. He had completed refresher training in working safely at heights one month prior to the incident.

30. Bridgeworks also employs one full time leading hand and two labourers. Further, from time to time, Bridgeworks engages additional workers from labour hire companies such as Topdeck. Formworkers are assessed over a trial period to ensure they have the experience and skill to undertake formwork duties.

31. Bridgeworks makes significant community contributions both domestically and internationally. It supports Mr Daniel Tower to partner with non-government organisations working in conflict affected areas including areas in Iraq targeted by ISIS and in West Africa. Bridgeworks financially supports Mr Daniel Tower to travel annually to Iraq to support civil infrastructure projects, community outreach programs and intercommunity cohesion initiatives on a pro bono basis. It also assists him to develop and execute infrastructure and societal projects through sharing strategic operations knowledge.

32. Other community contributions made by Bridgeworks and Mr Tower include consistent donations to the UN Refugee Agency over the past 10 years, direct community assistance and pro bono technical support to local government councils during the 2019–2020 NSW “Black Summer” bushfires and providing recycling and material donations wherever feasible.

The circumstances surrounding the incident

33. Mr Tower stated that Bridgeworks was engaged by Menai Civil to provide site establishment, piling works, supply and construction of substructure and superstructure and supply and construction of concrete and steel barriers. Mr Bagnato was engaged through Topdeck to undertake formwork for Bridgeworks. He had previously done formwork stripping on a bridge construction project for Bridgeworks and was found to be a competent worker. His competency to construct and dismantle formwork was assessed by site supervisors over approximately four to five weeks.

34. Prior to the incident, Bridgeworks had provided four metre platform ladders for the task of dismantling the formwork. The intended method of work was for the worker to ascend the platform ladder, attach the slings of the excavator to the formwork shutters and then descend to the ground below. There was no requirement for the worker to access the abutment or physically shake the formwork to separate it from the concrete element. Bridgeworks also had fall arrest harnesses and static lines available for use.

Systems of work prior to the incident

35. Bridgeworks had the following systems of work in place at the time of the incident, in addition to those set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts:

1. Quality Management, Environmental Management and Occupational Health and Safety Management systems that had been certified by the International Organisation of Standardisation;

2. Toolbox Talks conducted by Mr Buchanan following the principal contractor’s pre-start meeting to inform workers of new hazards on site and remind them of appropriate controls;

3. inspections to ensure workers are following safe work methods;

4. informal site audits every six to 12 months; and

5. regular site visits by Mr Tower and Mr Daniel Tower.

Systems of work after the incident

36. Following the incident, Bridgeworks purchased a mobile EWP at a cost of $152,000. Bridgeworks reviewed and revised construction sequence methodologies for other parts of the project, in particular “Erection and Removal of Work Platform” and “Construction of Superstructure”. It made work health and safety a standing item in all management and site coordination meetings and committed to providing ongoing formal work health and safety training to all workers through training organisations. Mr Buchanan has completed further training in working safely at heights and implementing and monitoring work health and safety policies, procedures and programs. Mr Tower and Mr Daniel Tower have both recently completed courses in work health and safety due diligence for CEOs, directors and managers.

36. Bridgeworks has also implemented a system by which workers undertake formal documented risk assessments when site conditions or activities change, especially prior to the commencement or continuation of any high-risk work. Mr Tower has committed to regular fortnightly site visits which increase in frequency when there is a change of work phase.

37. Bridgeworks has always undertaken infrastructure design so as to eliminate or minimise risks associated with construction work and adopted construction methodologies that reduce or eliminate time spent working at heights. It also routinely adapted construction sequencing to minimise elevated piling and column works in embankment areas. Such measures have a renewed focus.

38. Reference material from MidCoast Council in September 2023 and Goulburn Mulwaree Council in December 2024 rated Bridgeworks’ management of worksite safety as superior. The referee from the latter council observed that Bridgeworks’ “meticulous attention to documentation set a benchmark for professionalism and compliance”. Another client, Dungog Shire Council, made reference to Bridgeworks’ “strong and proactive safety culture on site”.

Consideration

40. I have had regard to the objects of the WHS Act set out in s 3 and the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (CSP Act).

41. I have taken into account the maximum penalty for this offence: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [31] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ (Markarian).

42. The Court arrives at the appropriate sentence through a process of “instinctive synthesis” in which the sentencing judge identifies all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discusses their significance and then makes a value judgment as to the appropriate sentence given those factors: Markarian at [51].

Objective seriousness

43. The proportionality principle requires that a sentence should neither exceed nor be less than the gravity of the crime having regard to the objective circumstances: Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 at 472, 485–6, 490–1 and 496. At common law, the term “objective circumstances” was used to describe the circumstances of a crime. The gravity of the offence was assessed by reference to its objective circumstances: R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 at [15].

44. This task requires the Court to consider where the conduct of Bridgeworks falls in the range of conduct covered by the offence: Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51; [1988] HCA 67 at 57. As Whealy JA said in BW v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 176 at [70] (Hulme and Harrison JJ agreeing at [75]–[76]):

“This assessment will generally indicate the appropriate range of sentences available which will reflect the objective seriousness of the offence committed, and set the limits within which a sentence proportional to the criminality of the offender will lie.”

45. The objective seriousness of an offence is to be determined by reference to the nature of the offending without reference to matters personal to a particular offender or class of offenders: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [27].

46. The sentencing judge should take into account not only the conduct which actually constitutes the crime, but also such of the surrounding circumstances as are directly related to that crime and are properly regarded as circumstances of aggravation or mitigation: R v Wilkinson(No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 at [61].

47. The existence of a reasonably foreseeable risk to safety that is likely to result in serious injury or death is a factor relevant to the gravity of the offence: Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610; [2000] NSWIRComm 71 at [82]. The question of foreseeability of the risk is to be determined objectively.

48. The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the sentencing process with regard to the WHS Act in Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General for New South Wales v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96. Under the heading “Assessment of Risk”, Basten J said:

“[34] The sentencing judge commenced his consideration with the proposition that ‘[g]reater culpability attaches to the failure to guard against an event the occurrence of which is probable rather than an event the occurrence of which is extremely unlikely’. However, the truth of that proposition depends upon other considerations including (a) the potential consequences of the risk, which may be mild or catastrophic, (b) the availability of steps to lessen, minimise or remove the risk, and (c) whether such steps are complex and burdensome or only mildly inconvenient. Relative culpability depends on assessment of all those factors.”

49. Further, at [42] his Honour continued:

“The culpability of the Respondent is not necessarily to be determined by the remoteness of the risk occurring, nor by a step‑by‑step assessment of the various elements. Culpability will turn upon an overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions. Culpability in this case is reasonably high because, even if the pressure event of the force which occurred might not be expected to occur often, the seriousness of the foreseeable resultant harm is extreme and the steps to be taken to avoid it, which were not even assessed, were straightforward and involved only minor inconvenience and little, if any, costs.”

50. At [53] his Honour dealt with the proper approach to considering the objective seriousness of offences under the WHS Act, saying:

“ … It is important to note that the risk to be assessed is not the risk of the consequence, to the extent that a worker is in fact injured, but is the risk arising from the failure to take reasonably practicable steps to avoid the injury occurring. To discount the seriousness of the risk by reference to the unlikelihood of injury resulting is apt to lead to error. The conduct in question is the failure to respond to a risk of injury, conduct which will be more serious, the more serious the potential injuries, whether or not they are likely to materialise. The objective seriousness of the conduct will also be affected by the ease with which mitigating steps could have been taken.”

51. The prosecutor submitted that this offence falls within the mid-range of objective seriousness. The risk of a person falling from height whilst conducting formwork stripping at the site was obvious and well-known to Bridgeworks. Any person stripping formwork would be working at height and would be at risk of falling if safe systems of work were not implemented and enforced. It would have been very straightforward for Bridgeworks to mitigate the risk by ensuring that workers, and in particular Mr Bagnato, were utilising safe systems of work. Such a failure was said to be inconsistent with a proactive or systematic approach to safety.

52. A meeting which occurred between Menai Civil, Bridgeworks and Stocklands prior to the commencement of the relevant works at the site, in which the works, construction methodology and safety issues were discussed, also supports an inference that Bridgeworks was aware of the safety requirements for the types of works they were engaged in. The risk was identified in SWMS No. 3 “Substructure Construction”, which required EWPs to be encapsulated by barriers and harnesses to be worn. Further, the August 2022 Project Safety Plan provided for regular site safety inspections to check for potential workplace hazards, including compliance by work crews with safe work methods.

53. Even a cursory site inspection would have revealed that there was no EWP at the site. Mr Buchanan was the site supervisor on site at the time of the incident. Considering his 15 years of experience in the construction industry, it ought to have been obvious to him that no EWP was available on site to be used to strip formwork as contemplated by the safety documents. However, in oral submissions, the prosecutor accepted that Bridgeworks had a platform ladder available for use, and that the gravamen of the offending was Bridgeworks’ failure to ensure that Mr Bagnato had continued to comply with the safe work systems that were in place when he began stripping the formwork from the south side of the abutment.

54. Bridgeworks contended that the objective seriousness of the offence was in the low range. Its failure was confined to ensuring the safety of Mr Bagnato on 11 November 2022 and not workers more generally. The safe system of work for stripping formwork which Bridgeworks had failed to implement and enforce allowed for a platform ladder to be used, and Bridgeworks had made one available. Site supervision undertaken earlier in the day had confirmed that Mr Bagnato was compliant with the intended safe work method. It was not part of Mr Bagnato’s role to climb onto the abutment or shake the formwork and there was no evidence that this had previously occurred. Mr Bagnato was a form worker with eight years’ experience who had been assessed on site as competent.

55. Further, Bridgeworks had taken proactive steps to develop a robust safety management system to comply with its duty under the WHS Act. The Project Safety Plan, Construction Method Statement and SWMS were all site-specific documents. Workers were inducted onto the site by the principal contractor as well as inducted into the SWMS, and Toolbox Talks were conducted on a daily basis by the experienced and well qualified site supervisor.

56. However, Bridgeworks accepted by its plea that the system failed when Mr Bagnato accessed the top of the abutment on 11 November 2022. The incident was a fall from height on a construction site which carries an inherent stigma of seriousness. Bridgeworks contended that the offending conduct should be viewed as an aberration of an otherwise well-functioning and safe system of work, although it also accepted that the SWMS did not adequately detail the process for stripping formwork which was in operation earlier in the day.

57. The measures which Bridgeworks accepts that it could have taken to prevent the incident are set out at [4] above. The risk of a fall from heights was foreseeable, well known to Bridgeworks and increased by the unavailability of an EWP on site, as contemplated by the SWMS. Further, it was entirely straightforward for Bridgeworks to implement and enforce its intended safe work method using the available platform ladder, because that safe work method had been used for stripping formwork earlier in the day. The method which Mr Bagnato was allowed to adopt after lunch represented a gross departure from acceptable procedure and was plainly unsafe.

58. However, I accept that the offence was an aberration. It was not part of Mr Bagnato’s role either to climb to the top of the abutment or to shake the formwork. The potential consequences of falling almost 3.85 metres to the ground, which must include fatal injury, need to be viewed in that context. An appropriate (but inadequately documented) process had been in place when supervision of the formwork stripping occurred on the morning of the day in question.

59. The charge provides for the use of a platform ladder as an appropriate safe work method for stripping formwork. This reflects recognition that it will not always be appropriate to use an EWP. A platform ladder in the immediate vicinity of the work was available to be used. I also accept that the degree of supervision which Bridgeworks was required to provide to Mr Bagnato ought to reflect his experience as a formworker and his assessment on site over several weeks as competent. Taking all of the above matters into account, I find the offence to be in the low range of objective seriousness.

Aggravating factors

60. The injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was substantial: s 21A(2)(g) CSP Act. In order for the aggravating factor to be established, the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the harm was greater or more deleterious than may ordinarily be expected for the subject offence: R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 at [26].

61. The offence does not require an injury to be sustained, but merely the creation of a risk of death or serious injury. The injuries sustained by Mr Bagnato are sufficient to establish the aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors

62. Bridgeworks has no prior convictions: s 21A(3)(e) CSP Act.

63. Bridgeworks is otherwise of good character: s 21A(3)(f) CSP Act. This is demonstrated by its corporate citizenship in supporting community projects both locally and abroad to which I have already referred, as well as its response to the incident. Further, Bridgeworks and its predecessor entities have been operating since 1993 without conviction or so much as the receipt of an Improvement Notice prior to the incident giving rise to this offence.

64. I find that Bridgeworks has good prospects of rehabilitation (s 21A(3)(h) CSP Act) and is unlikely to reoffend (s 21A(3)(g) CSP Act). I am fortified in this view by the measures taken by Bridgeworks’ management in response to the incident, including the purchase of a mobile EWP, the additional training provided for both employees and contractors in relation to safety issues and its increased focus on documentation of operating procedures and risk assessments. The training which Mr Buchanan has undertaken in implementing and monitoring WHS policies, procedures and programs directly addresses the critical failing giving rise to the subject offence. Both Mr Tower and his son have completed work health and safety due diligence training for CEOs, directors and managers. I have referred above to the superior rating given to Bridgeworks by some of its more recent clients for its management of worksite safety.

65. Bridgeworks has shown remorse for the offence: s 21A(3)(i) CSP Act. I accept Mr Tower’s evidence that Bridgeworks has accepted responsibility for its actions and has acknowledged that its failures led to the injury of Mr Bagnato. This is reinforced by the assistance offered to Mr Bagnato both immediately after the incident and following his discharge from hospital.

66. Bridgeworks entered a plea of guilty on 30 June 2025 to the charge particularised in an Amended Summons of that date. The plea of guilty was entered at the third mention of proceedings which commenced on 8 November 2024 and were first before the Court on 17 February 2025. Bridgeworks is entitled to a discount on penalty that reflects the utilitarian value of that early plea: R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 at [123]; R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 at [32]. The prosecutor did not take issue with the defendant’s submission that it should be afforded a discount on sentence of 25% in recognition of its early guilty plea. I accept that a discount of 25% is appropriate in the circumstances: ss 21A(3)(k) and 22 CSP Act.

67. Bridgeworks submits that its cooperation with the authorities, an agreed fact, is a matter which should operate in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed upon it: s 21A(3)(m) CSP Act. I accept Mr Tower’s evidence that Bridgeworks responded in a timely manner to several regulatory notices served upon it. Further, the steps taken by Bridgeworks in response to the incident extended beyond the revision of its methodology for dismantling formwork shutters. Mr Tower states that Bridgeworks reviewed and revised its construction sequence methodologies and SWMS across the project. Accordingly, I accept that Bridgeworks has cooperated with authorities sufficiently to attract the benefit of this mitigating factor and apply a modest discount on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.

Deterrence

68. The penalty imposed in relation to this offence must reflect the need for general deterrence. Falls from height are a notoriously prevalent issue both in the construction industry generally and in the specific context of formwork. The fine to be imposed should also operate as a form of specific deterrence. However, I accept that because Bridgeworks has no criminal antecedents, is a family business with a significant degree of personal oversight from the managing director and has responded to the incident in the fulsome way described, specific deterrence does not carry significant weight in the sentencing exercise.

Parity

69. On 19 August 2025, Menai Civil was convicted of an offence pursuant to s 33 of the WHS Act that arose from this same incident and fined $69,750 (which represented a 25% discount on the otherwise appropriate fine of $93,000): SafeWork NSWvMenai Civil Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIC 8. The principle of parity with co-offenders is not limited to persons charged with the same offence: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 at [30]; SafeWork NSW v PRW Services Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Peter Whalan [2024] NSWDC 16 at [82]. However, I accept the prosecutor’s submission that that there is little assistance to be gained from that sentencing exercise, concerning as it did an offence which does not involve the exposure of an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. Bridgeworks did not submit otherwise.

Capacity to pay a fine

70. The Court is required to have regard to s 6 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) before imposing a fine. Bridgeworks has not provided any evidence concerning its capacity to pay a fine and makes no submission in that regard.

71. In Unity Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 at [79] the Court of Criminal Appeal recognised that a fine which may be crippling to a small business may have virtually no impact on the financial operations of a large corporation and that the maximum penalty for the offence was “undoubtedly” set having regard to that circumstance. I accept that Bridgeworks is a family operated business and I have regard to that matter in determining the appropriate penalty.

Penalty

72. The appropriate fine is $200,000, which will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.

73. I make the following orders:

1. I convict Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd of the offence as charged.

2. I impose a fine of $150,000.

3. Bridgeworks (Aust) Pty Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

4. Pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 October 2025