Understanding the Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace: Insights from the Supagas Pty Ltd v The King Decision
- Brian AJ Newman LLB
- May 24
- 4 min read
Workplace safety is not merely a good practice—it’s a fundamental obligation employers owe to their employees and the wider community. The recent Victorian Court of Appeal case, Supagas Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 106, offers critical guidance on how employers must manage workplace risks, clearly outlining the scope and gravity of these legal responsibilities.
Background: A Catastrophic Incident
On December 1, 2017, an incident at the Supagas Bayswater site had devastating consequences. A worker, John Portelli, who was employed by New Sector Engineering Pty Ltd through a labour-hire arrangement, visited Supagas to collect an acetylene gas cylinder. Unaware of the inherent risks, he placed the cylinder into an enclosed toolbox of his utility vehicle. Tragically, this enclosed environment led to a severe explosion shortly after he left the premises, resulting in significant injuries and widespread property damage.

Legal Proceedings and Initial Findings
Supagas faced three charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic):
Charge 1: Failure to maintain a safe system of work for employees.
Charge 2: Failure to adequately instruct and train employees.
Charge 3: Failure to ensure non-employees were not exposed to risks.
After extensive deliberation, the jury found Supagas guilty of failing to provide safe systems of work (Charge 1) and failing to protect non-employees (Charge 3). Interestingly, Supagas was acquitted on Charge 2 regarding training, indicating the jury believed training was adequate but systemic safety implementation was insufficient.
Appeal and Key Issues
Supagas challenged these convictions, arguing that the jury verdicts were logically inconsistent. The company further contended that the prosecutor improperly broadened the case by suggesting a checklist as part of a safety system during closing arguments—a measure not explicitly mentioned in the original charges. They also questioned the trial judge’s guidance to the jury about whether safety procedures must be documented, alleging this caused confusion.

Court of Appeal Decision: Clarifying Employer Obligations
The Court of Appeal carefully reviewed these arguments and delivered key clarifications:
1. Consistency in Jury Verdicts
The court held the verdicts were consistent and logical. While the jury found Supagas provided adequate training, they rightly concluded the actual system of ensuring safety procedures were consistently applied was lacking. This distinction between providing knowledge versus ensuring ongoing compliance was pivotal.
2. Prosecution Case Boundaries
Supagas’ claim about the prosecution improperly introducing a "checklist" concept was dismissed. The court found the prosecutor's remarks were illustrative examples of safety measures rather than an unfair expansion of the charges. Crucially, the trial judge's direction explicitly advised the jury that a checklist was not a required element for a conviction, thus nullifying potential prejudice.
3. Documenting Safety Procedures
The appellate court confirmed that the judge's advice to the jury—that documenting safety systems is a matter of fact rather than law—was correct. Documentation, while valuable, is not strictly a legal requirement. However, its presence or absence may influence assessments about the effectiveness of safety management practices.
Sentencing: Assessing the Gravity of Safety Breaches
Supagas was fined a substantial total of $550,000 ($275,000 per charge), though without conviction. On appeal, the company argued these fines were excessive, contending the sentencing judge misjudged the risk severity. However, the Court of Appeal strongly affirmed that the fines were proportionate and justified by the severity of potential risks and the catastrophic outcomes demonstrated by the explosion.
In doing so, the court reiterated critical sentencing principles for occupational safety offences outlined in previous cases:
Employers are penalised for the gravity of their breach of statutory duty, not merely the outcomes of breaches.
Courts must evaluate both the likelihood of risks arising and the potential severity of the consequences if they do.
Here, the court highlighted that transporting acetylene improperly significantly elevates explosion risks, making the company’s lapse a serious breach deserving a strong penalty.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case clearly underscores essential obligations employers must heed:
Providing training alone is insufficient; robust, systematic safety measures and regular compliance checks are essential.
Documentation is valuable, but implementation and consistent practice are even more critical.
The potential severity of risks profoundly impacts the gravity assessment in safety breaches, making meticulous risk management crucial.
Employers across all industries should view the Supagas decision as an authoritative reminder that workplace safety is a serious, ongoing duty—not a box-ticking exercise.
Conclusion: A Clear Message on Workplace Safety
The decision in Supagas Pty Ltd v The King sends an unequivocal message to employers: safety is paramount and demands systematic vigilance. For employees and the wider community, this ruling represents a positive reinforcement of the principle that safety at work is a right, not a privilege. It also affirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding rigorous standards that protect workers from preventable harm.
For further details, the full judgment can be accessed here:Supagas Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 106.
Disclaimer: This blog post is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.
Comments