Skip to content

Case studies

Filter by Industry
Filter by Audience
Filter by Author
Filter by Hazard type
Hazard type
Filter by Topic
Selected filters

All case studies

Choose a sort order
  • Dindas Australia - Onsite traffic management in action

    Practical information about the changes Dindas made to their traffic management to make their depots safer in all locations.

  • Dedicated WHS manager and improvements in WHS systems - CB Group

    CB Group is a civil construction company based on the Gold Coast that specialises in energy. It has a workforce of 123, comprising office and field workers. CB Group undertakes a wide variety of civil construction work and specialises in underground work associated with telecommunications, streetlights and traffic signals. The energy division is also involved in renewable energy such as solar.

  • Onsite gym and healthy lifestyle program - Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd

    The Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd (PBPL), which manages the Port of Brisbane under a 99 year lease from the Queensland Government, has undergone substantial organisational change in recent years. As part of due diligence for the leasing of the port, the new owners identified that workplace health and safety improvements were a priority given the high incidence of 33 injuries recorded in 2010–11.

  • Rotation of manual task roles and smaller milk jugs - BP Retail Wild Bean Cafes

    BP is engaged in the exploration for and production of oil, natural gas and liquefied natural gas, and the refining, transportation and marketing of petroleum products. BP is also responsible for a number of coffee making facilities as part of retail activities at its travel centres. Some of these travel centres experience high volumes of coffee production, with approximately 140 coffees produced per hour during peak periods. These high volume sites include Wild Bean Cafes based at travel centres across South-East Queensland.

  • Cater Care Group: Emphasising capacity, not limitation

    Cater Care Group provides contract catering, accommodation and facility management services to industries in regional and remote locations across Queensland.

  • Modern Teaching Aids

    MTA was invited to join the Injury Prevention and Management (IPaM) program in 2013 after experiencing a higher than average number of worker’s compensation claims.


    In 2011, mining and minerals exploration company, ‘Drill Engineering and Pastoral Co ‘(DEPCO), were invited to participate in IPaM and the results are paying off.

  • Risk of injury for manual handling

    Griffiths v State of Queensland, 1 April 2011. The injured worker was employed as a nursing assistant at the Nambour General Hospital, where she worked in the Central Sterilising Service Department (CSSD). The CSSD is a large industrial washing area, equipped with sterilising dishwashers and other equipment for medical sterilisation and cleaning.

  • All Access Crewing Pty Ltd: The show must go on..safely

    All Access Crewing provide specialist workers for the entertainment industry including stage managers, riggers, scaffolders, lighting and sound technicians. All Access Crewing provide support for concerts, music festivals, theatre productions, sporting events and film and television production across Australia.

  • Gay Constructions Pty Ltd

    With IPaM, Gay Constructions reviewed its safety and injury management systems and surveyed employees about safety in the workplace. The company then worked with an IPaM advisor to develop an action plan that included a number of safety and injury management initiatives.

  • Verbal warning not enough

    Samways v WorkCover Queensland & Ors, 28 April 2010. This case study shows that a verbal warning is not sufficient action if there is a reasonable way to isolate a risk and the plaintiff can be liable for contributory negligence

  • Instructions: a direction or mere request?

    Vella’s Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Mistranch Pty Ltd & Ors, 29 March 2012. This case highlights the question that needs to be asked in matters where directions are being received from the principal contractor. That is, whether an instruction from a Principal is a mere “request” or is conduct amounting to direction and control of how the work is to be carried out.