A Western Australian construction company has been hit with a record $1.75 million fine – the highest penalty ever imposed under WA’s workplace safety laws – after a worker was fatally struck by a falling structural steel column. This record penalty echoes other recent prosecution activity in Western Australia for exclusion zone breaches in the construction industry.

The record $1.75million penalty

AR Constructions was fined $1.75 million, and ordered to pay $2,661 in costs, over the death of a worker who was struck by a falling structural steel column on a Malaga construction site in July 2024.

The company, currently in the process of liquidation, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the health and safety of a worker and, by that failure, causing his death. The fine was imposed in the Midland Magistrates Court on 22 June 2026.

What happened

AR Constructions was engaged by principal contractor, Glask Construction, to erect structural steel, including standing columns, at a large industrial construction site in Malaga in July 2024.

On the day of the incident, a column was lifted and suspended 30 cm from the ground in anticipation of being placed on the rag bolt assembly by the dogger and rigger. While the dogger was elsewhere on site, the rigger entered the danger zone under and around the suspended column. The lifting device failed and the column fell onto the rigger, resulting in fatal crush injuries.

The lifting device used a non-proprietary “Pink Lug”, was not compliant with the Lifting Standard and was not rated or marked with its working load limit. The court heard that the company’s directors were aware the Pink Lug was not rated or compliant but did not remove it from use.

The awareness of company officers that a piece of plant is non-compliant is a key consideration for a court when determining the appropriate penalty, as it reflects the extent to which the risk was knowingly tolerated.

The Magistrate found in all the circumstances that this incident was at the highest end of seriousness of offending and that the defective lifting equipment ought to have been immediately removed from site when it was identified.

WorkSafe’s message on exclusion zones

WorkSafe Commissioner Sally North’s comments following the prosecution leave no doubt about the regulator’s focus.

“It’s common knowledge in industry that lifting devices need to be inspected regularly, rated to lift relevant loads and that the failure of lifting devices exposes workers in the fall zone to the risk of being crushed by falling objects,” Ms North said.

“The size of the penalty imposed in this case serves as an important reminder to have safe work procedures in place and to ensure those procedures are known and followed.”

This record fine is a clear signal that WorkSafe is taking an increasingly firm stance on failures to meet lifting standard and enforce exclusion zones, particularly where workers enter the fall zone of suspended loads or are exposed to dropped-object hazards.

A pattern of enforcement: Wiluna Operations

The AR Constructions penalty comes on the heels of another significant prosecution. In April 2026, mining company Wiluna Operations Pty Ltd was fined $575,000 after an apprentice mechanical fitter suffered a permanent spinal injury and became a paraplegic when a wheel assembly weighing more than 750 kilograms fell on him.

In this incident a mechanic gestured for the apprentice to walk in front of the telehandler and retrieve washers from inside a wheel assembly’s rim. As the apprentice reached into the rim, the unsecured assembly fell forward, striking and pinning him to the ground.

After the incident, Wiluna Operations developed an additional procedure for the replacement of wheels on surface mining equipment that specifically addressed exclusion zones, transportation protocols and injury risks. These remedial actions were seen as an acknowledgement that the absence of defined exclusion zones was a root cause of the harm to the apprentice.

Recent reportable incident: Pipe rebounds in drop zone

Adding further context is a recent reportable incident that illustrates how exclusion zones can fail even when controls are nominally in place.

In this third incident, a worker sustained rib and shoulder blade fractures after a section of a bore pipe rebounded within a designated drop zone during removal from an elevated work platform. Workers had cut the pipe free and dropped it from height. The pipe landed within a 14 m² drop zone but deflected on impact and rolled across the area. Despite the presence of spotters, the moving pipe struck a trades assistant who was sitting on a kerb inside the exclusion zone.

This incident demonstrates how dropped objects can travel unpredictably after impact and expose workers to line-of-fire hazards, even where controls are in place. It highlights how quickly routine tasks can escalate when exclusion zones do not account for secondary movement on hard surfaces.

Key takeaways for construction companies

These prosecutions and incidents reinforce several critical lessons:

• Design exclusion zones conservatively: Zones must account for secondary movement including bounce, deflection, and rolling.
• Enforce exclusion rigorously: The record fine underscores the consequences of personnel entering fall zones during lifting operations.
• Use compliant equipment: All lifting devices must be rated, marked, and regularly inspected.
• Install physical barriers: Barricades or bunding should restrict object travel and prevent inadvertent entry into exclusion zones.
• Provide task-specific procedures: Generalised procedures have been found inadequate by the courts.
• Supervise actively: Maintain control of exclusion areas throughout the task.

How we can assist

The Workplace Relations and Safety team at HWLE Lawyers can assist with navigating work health and safety obligations, including reviewing exclusion zone procedures, responding to WorkSafe investigations, managing reportable incidents, and advising on prosecution risk.

If you have questions about your exposure or need assistance in the wake of a safety incident, our team is available to help.

This article was written by Danielle Flint, Partner, and Audrey Ooi, Associate.