This article contains references to self-harm, and injury impacting young people, which some readers may find distressing.

A spike in regulatory intervention suggests increased focus on safety in educational settings. Recent judgments and prosecution announcements have spotlighted obligations relating to the elimination and control of both physical and psychosocial hazards arising in educational settings and the heightened duty owed to young people in these environments.

While two of the cases discussed focus on physical injury relating to equipment and activities, the NSW case demonstrates how safety duties in education also extend to the psychosocial domain.

According to guidance published by SafeWork NSW the most common causes of injury in the education and training sector include manual handling and repetitive movement types, stress from high work demands, harassment and bullying, slips, trips and falls and injuries caused by aggressive and unpredictable people, including students. However, the examples outlined below emphasise the truly unique nature of the hazards that can arise in education settings.

A common thread is the heightened nature of the duty of care owed to children and young people. This includes in the adequate design and implementation of safety systems and quality of supervision, noting the various risks young people are exposed to in educational settings.

Guillotine injury in secondary school

A recent Victorian decision highlights the risk of inadequate training, guarding and supervision associated with students using high risk machinery.

On 23 September 2026, the Wodonga Magistrates’ Court issued a fine of $150,000 to the responsible education authority after a student had three fingers severed during a jewellery design class at a regional secondary school.

The incident involved a 15-year-old student and three classmates who used a guillotine to cut a piece of brass as part of the class. As the student held the metal at the rear of the machine, with his fingers near a shear point but away from the cutting blade, a classmate activated the foot pedal. Despite another classmate calling out to stop, the beam dropped, amputating three fingertips on the student’s left hand. An investigation by WorkSafe Victoria found that the guillotine was kept in an unlocked storeroom accessible to students with no guarding on its dangerous rear area, no assessment of whether the students were competent to operate the machine, and no teacher present at the time of the incident.

The case highlighted how essential training, guarding and supervision are in a learning environment, and the heightened responsibility on schools to assist children in recognising and managing such hazards.

Prosecution following a hammer throw ball injury at athletics training

In South Australia, another recent prosecution announcement has emphasised the risk associated with plant and equipment utilised in educational settings.

On 3 September 2026, a prosecution was commenced in the South Australian Employment Court in relation to the risk that both workers and students were exposed to during a 2024 athletics training.

The prosecution was commenced after a student suffered a head injury after being struck with a hammer throw ball during school athletics training.

The school in question was charged with a Category 2 offence under the South Australian safety legislation for failing to provide adequate instruction or training to staff responsible for organising and supervising training, failure to ensure safety policies and procedures were followed, and failure to carry out adequate hazard identification and risk assessment.

It has been further alleged that the school failed to maintain a safe environment by not keeping the hammer throw clear of students undertaking javelin and not using a safety cage that was compliant with industry standards. It is alleged by the prosecutor that the failures exposed both students and workers to a risk of death or serious injury from being struck by the hammer throw ball.

More details will come to light as the prosecution progresses through the Court.

Psychosocial hazard improvement notices upheld in relation to investigation process

In NSW, the Industrial Relations Commission has endorsed the content of two improvement notices issued over the handling of a workplace misconduct investigation. The 2 March 2026 decision emphasises the importance of timeliness, communication and procedural fairness in the conduct of workplace investigations in order to minimise the risk of harm to investigation participants.

Investigation delays, inadequate communication and unsuitable alternative duties can of themselves constitute psychosocial hazards.

Two Improvement Notices were issued with a focus on the department’s system for managing conduct and performance investigations, after a worker who was stood down from the workplace and was directed to perform alternative duties without being given the particulars of the allegations raised against her, self-harmed.  Evidence from the worker’s treating clinical psychologist attributed her symptoms, including suicidal ideation, depression and anxiety, to the organisation’s failure to conduct the investigation in a timely manner, its lack of a formal process of providing progress updates, and the alternative duties assigned to her.

It was asserted by the SafeWork NSW inspector in issuing the Improvement Notices in question, that the procedure exposed workers to the risk of psychosocial hazards as it did not ensure investigations were completed in a timely manner, lacked a process for providing regular documented updates to workers under investigation and placed workers under investigation into alternative duties not commensurate with their substantive role.

After the content of the two Improvement Notices was challenged, the Commission found that there was a reasonable basis for the inspector to issue the notices based on her reasonable belief that there was a contravention of section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) and the regulation. Components of the Improvement Notices relating to investigation timeframes and the provision of alternative duties were upheld. Some aspects of the Improvement Notices in relation to asserted reporting inadequacies were set aside.

Takeaways for education providers

Together, these cases demonstrate that both physical and psychosocial hazards in education settings are attracting close regulatory scrutiny, particularly given the duty of care owed to children and young people.

Education providers should review their current risk assessments and control measures against published Codes of Practice, including those addressing safe work environments, the management of plant and the management of psychosocial hazards.

This article was written by Lily Schafer-Gardiner, Special Counsel, and reviewed by Greg McCann, Partner.