Background
A recent Supreme Court decision of Speziali v Nortask Pty Ltd and Anor [2023] QSC 166 has reinforced the obligations of both employers and occupiers to provide safe systems of access for workers on job sites, especially in hazardous environments.
Although the decision is technically unreported, it provides a clear and useful illustration of how Queensland courts approach workplace injury claims—particularly where questions of liability between multiple parties arise. The plaintiff, Mr Speziali, sustained serious injuries while working at a height of 14.5 metres on a site where he was performing repair work following a fire. Access to the worksite was by way of a fixed metal ladder attached to the structure. During his descent, and despite using the standard “three points of contact” method, he slipped and fell approximately 10 metres to a concrete floor below. The ladder was wet and slippery, and critically, there was no mechanism to allow the use of a fall-arrest harness on the way up or down, although such anchorage was available at the top platform.
Mr Speziali made claims against both his employer and the occupier of the premises, arguing that the ladder failed to meet the relevant Australian Standards, lacked anti-slip protection, and did not permit safe harness use. His employer admitted liability early in the proceedings. However, the occupier denied liability, asserting that the worker was part of a specialist contractor crew and had the option of using a crane manbox to access the site.
Background of the Speziali v Nortask [2023] Supreme Court Case
The court rejected this argument decisively. It found that there was no particular expertise required to descend a ladder and that the ladders were, in fact, the logical and expected means of accessing the platform. Importantly, the manbox was deemed suitable only for transporting tools and materials—not for routine access by workers. Justice Davis clarified that the case was not about a contractor devising their own system of work; it was about an occupier allowing access via an unsafe method that failed to comply with safety standards.
The court also rejected an argument of contributory negligence. Citing Bankstown Foundry v Braistina (1986), it held that the plaintiff’s actions—although involving a momentary misjudgement—did not rise to the level of negligence that would reduce the compensation he should be awarded.
Ultimately, the plaintiff was awarded over $1.34 million in damages. The employer was ordered to pay 25% of the damages, while the occupier bore the remaining 75% and was solely liable for over $440,000 in past and future care costs.
Summary
This case serves as a strong reminder for both employers and occupiers: simply relying on standard industry practices is not enough. Safe access must be actively ensured, and any risks—particularly involving work at heights—must be identified and mitigated to ensure maximum safety. Where an occupier provides a means of access that is non-compliant or unsafe, they may be held substantially liable for any resulting injuries.
At our firm, we continue to advocate for injured workers and ensure they receive fair compensation when safety obligations are neglected. If you or someone you know has suffered an injury in the workplace, contact us today for a free assessment of your rights and entitlements.
If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.
