The newly restored New South Wales Industrial Court has issued convictions against a principal contractor and its sole director, establishing that corporate officers cannot use a subcontractor’s technical expertise as a shield against personal safety obligations. In SafeWork NSW v Ausino Group Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Sang [2026] NSWIC 18, handed down on 15 May 2026, Paingakulam J convicted both parties over a Category 3 breach of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).
The prosecution followed a September 2022 incident where a six-metre-high mobile scaffold was blown off a 9-story CBD rooftop during wind gusts of up to 61 km/h. The structure fell six stories onto the glass roof of a neighbouring building, shattering the ceiling above an active art gallery and café.
The court flatly rejected director Hong (Robin) Sang’s application to avoid a criminal conviction under Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The director argued that a criminal record would delay or prejudice the annual visas he required to travel to China for specialized medical monitoring of a brain aneurysm.
Paingakulam J ruled that the potential for travel delays did not constitute the “exceptional circumstances” required to escape a WHS conviction. The court fined the family-owned company $20,000 (reduced from $50,000 due to limited financial capacity) and fined the director personally $8,000, emphasizing that executive duties are non-delegable.
In commercial property management and rooftop renovation projects, operations directors frequently rely on specialized subcontractors to handle high-risk construction tasks. A common administrative assumption is that once a licensed scaffolding firm erects a structure and issues a formal handover certificate, the principal contractor’s safety perimeter is insulated from liability. Management teams routinely assume that any subsequent mechanical failure or environmental incident stems from a specialized subcontractor error rather than a primary corporate oversight.
Listen to the ‘State of Safety’ Podcast covering this article
This legal illusion has been forcefully dismantled, proving that relying on a specialist’s reputation without executing documented site-specific consultation creates immediate criminal liability for both the company and its directors.
The Administrative Flaw
- Passive Reliance: Management assumes a specialist subcontractor’s tenure removes the need to conduct independent risk reviews.
- Information Gap: Scaffolding is procured without disclosing that the six-metre units will be placed on an exposed rooftop.
- Paper Shield: Director signs a standard handover certificate without verifying if site-specific wind ties are physically installed.
The Judicial Benchmark
- Non-Delegable Duty: Engagement of a third-party contractor does not reduce the principal contractor’s primary safety duty.
- Personal Conviction: Industrial Court rejects Section 10 appeal; overseas travel or visa impacts do not excuse WHS director neglect.
- Systemic Enforcement: Classifies the lack of toolboxes, induction logs, and wind risk mapping as a mid-range criminal offense.
The friction of unverified subcontractor engagement
The engineering review of the Nelson House project exposed a complete failure of information transfer and joint risk assessment. Ausino engaged a specialized scaffolding company to supply mobile scaffolding units for a rooftop bar renovation. The director met with the supplier at their premises to verify the components would fit into the site’s service lift, but he failed to explicitly state that the six-metre towers were intended for an exposed, high-altitude rooftop environment.
The scaffolding supplier delivered pre-packaged kits containing lockable wheels and stabilisers, under the impression the equipment was for internal use. The supplier’s manufacturing safety guidelines which explicitly banned the use of mobile towers in winds exceeding 60 km/h and required securing the towers to fixed structures were never passed down to Ausino.
When the subcontractor’s licensed scaffolder erected the towers on the rooftop, the stabilisers closest to the edge were restricted by a perimeter wall and left completely unsecured by ties or counterweights. Because the principal contractor never requested or verified a site-specific Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) from the subcontractor, the towers remained completely unsecured for seven days until high winds blew one unit over the handrailing.
The collapse of the specialist reliance defense
The director sought to minimize his personal culpability by pointing to his prior positive relationship with the scaffolding firm and the fact that he signed a formal handover certificate. The Industrial Court rejected the idea that a signed piece of paper satisfies the statutory standard when an executive fails to provide active, localized oversight.
| Operational Component | The Administrative Illusion | The Forensically Audited Standard |
| Contractor Management | Assuming a subcontractor’s professional qualifications excuse the principal from site-specific checks. | Absolute requirement to cross-consult and verify that subcontractors hold approved, site-specific SWMS. |
| Due Diligence Architecture | Treating a signed handover certificate as an absolute liability shield against field defects. | Mandates active director verification through ongoing site inspections and structural monitoring. |
| Risk Assessment | Relying on generic equipment profiles without disclosing high-exposure environmental traps. | Compulsory obligation to inform suppliers of extreme factors like rooftop wind loading. |
The court determined that the director, as the site supervisor and sole employee, was the “arms and legs” of the business. His failure to request a site-specific SWMS, conduct toolbox talks, or execute basic field inspections meant the company’s WHS Management Plan remained entirely on paper. Human error and environmental forces are predictable field realities, and failing to implement basic verification loops places an organization in the mid-range of objective seriousness.
Upstream strategies for structural compliance
To ensure your commercial contracting and property management structures can survive targeted SafeWork inspections, organizations must enforce active, general verification loops:
Enforce active, multi-party SWMS verification
Never permit a subcontractor to initiate high-risk construction work, including scaffolding erection, altering, or stripping, until their site-specific SWMS has been formally reviewed, approved, and integrated with the principal contractor’s management plan. The documentation must explicitly account for localized hazards, such as height, wind loading, and public exclusion zones.
Hard-code independent site inspection logs
Erase passive reliance models from your operational footprint. Executive teams and project supervisors must conduct documented field validations. High-risk assets left standing on site must be subject to routine, logged inspections to verify they remain stable, secure, and clear of hazardous environmental changes.
Establish transparent technical consultation tracks
Principal contractors must lead the coordination of information transfer. When procurement teams hire heavy plant or structures, they must provide clear site drawings and environmental specifications to the supplier. You must actively confirm that the asset provided is technically fit for purpose within its specific geographic and spatial layout.
Source material & case citation
- Primary Authority: SafeWork NSW v Ausino Group Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Sang [2026] NSWIC 18 (15 May 2026).
- Statutory Intersect: Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), Section 19 (Primary duty of care), Section 27 (Duty of officers to exercise due diligence), and Section 33 (Failure to comply with a Category 3 duty).
