2 min read

Company fined $170,000 for 'fire watch' failure

In Victoria, the operator of a brown coal-fuelled thermal power station, EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd, was fined $170,000 for failing to effectively control fire risks at its facilities (WorkSafe Victoria v EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd [2025]).

The company pleaded guilty to having breached section 21(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), after one of its fuel distribution houses burst into flames while staff, including the designated safety observer, were on their lunch break.

Employees at the power station are often tasked with performing hot works, which includes welding, flame cutting or any process capable of producing sparks or fire. The company is required to issue hot works permits whenever these types of processes are required. One key condition of the permit is the requirement for an employee to be nominated as a ‘fire watch’. These individuals are required to oversee the hot works areas and manage any fires that could break out. However, it was a common and accepted practice for the company’s nominated fire watch to leave the hot works areas unattended during breaks.

This omission to the procedure is exactly what occurred on the date of the incident in November 2021. The nominated fire watch had hosed off the hot works area, performed a visual inspection, determined there was no active fire, then joined their colleagues for a lunch break. The fire alarm was triggered only 10 minutes later, and the flames from an uncontrolled fire source continued for 2 hours. While no workers were injured, the flames caused structural damage to the roof of the area and a nearby conveyor.

The company acknowledged that it failed to provide a safe and risk-free workplace. Workers were exposed to the risk that an undetected fire could erupt during breaks or at the end of the day, putting their health and safety at risk. In the judgment, the Court noted the gravity of the impact these practices could have on the surrounding community. Importantly, the Court found that it was reasonably practicable (and financially viable) for the company to have implemented a more effective process of ensuring the absence of a fire risk by purchasing and using a thermal imaging camera.


Subscribe to the Health & Safety Bulletin

From the experts behind the Health & Safety Handbook, the Bulletin brings you the latest work health and safety news, legal updates, case law and practical advice straight to your inbox every week.

Sending confirmation email...
Great! Now check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.
Please enter a valid email address!