The $20,000 guard that cost a business almost $600,000

The $20,000 guard that cost a business almost $600,000

A Gisborne business with well trained staff, clear written procedures and a good health and safety record has been ordered to pay almost $600,000 after a worker died in its industrial waste shredder. The missing piece was a perimeter guard with an interlocked gate, which WorkSafe says would have cost less than $20,000.

In WorkSafe New Zealand v M E Jukes & Son Ltd [2025] NZDC 29134, the District Court found M E Jukes & Son Ltd (Jukes) guilty of breaching its primary duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), following the death of a worker who became entangled in the company’s industrial waste shredder.

This decision is important for any business that operates plant or machinery. It reinforces a clear message: Trained workers and clear written procedures are not enough on their own. Where a practical engineering control is available, businesses are expected to use it rather than rely on workers following instructions.

Background 

In April 2022, Maurice Dooling, a general hand plant operator, died after becoming entangled in the waste shredder. Exactly how he came to enter the machine is not known, and the Court made no finding that the company’s failure caused his death. The charge was about exposing workers to risk.

Workers observed the shredder from an elevated operator’s platform fitted with a guard rail and a sliding mesh gate. The gate was designed to protect workers from objects flying out of the shredder, not to stop access to it, and it was not interlocked to the machine.

WorkSafe charged the company on the basis that it was reasonably practicable to have guarded the shredder with a perimeter guard with interlocked access.

The District Court’s Findings

The Court accepted that Jukes:

• had clear and up to date operating procedures
• properly trained and supervised its workers, including Mr Dooling
• had considered an interlock system over the years

Despite this, the Court rejected Jukes’ argument that the only hazard was the shredder’s teeth, which could not be reached from the platform. Under the HSWA, a hazard includes a person’s behaviour. The real risk was a worker carelessly, foolishly or even irrationally ignoring instructions and getting too close to the shredder while it was running. The Court found this was a real and foreseeable risk.

A perimeter guard with interlocked access was available, suitable and would have materially reduced the risk. It was a simple and relatively low cost fix, and the Court described the failure to install it as a “serious and elementary breach” of the company’s duty.

Outcome

In its sentencing decision, WorkSafe New Zealand v M E Jukes & Son Ltd [2026] NZDC 11060, the District Court ordered:

• A fine of $420,000;
• Reparation for emotional harm of $140,000;
• Payment of $27,500 towards the costs of the prosecution; and
• An additional $10,000 for the actual and reasonable costs of the principal expert.

Key Takeaways for All Businesses

This case highlights several important principles for any business that uses plant or machinery:

• Businesses must plan for human error. It is no defence that a worker disobeyed instructions, as the law expects businesses to anticipate careless and even irrational behaviour.
• Compliance with a standard is not a safe harbour. Keeping workers a “safe distance” from a hazard counts for little if, in practice, workers are known to cross that line. Older machinery should be reviewed against current guidance, with competent advice obtained.
• Low-cost controls will rarely be grossly disproportionate where the risk is death or serious injury. Where a control has been considered and rejected, that decision should be documented and revisited regularly.
• A good safety record will not protect you. The Court described Jukes as a diligent employer, “not a cavalier PCBU”, yet still imposed a fine of $420,000.
• You can be convicted without the breach being proved to have caused the death. The offence is exposing workers to a risk of death or serious injury.

What should you do now?

• WorkSafe has called this case a watershed for machine safety. We recommend you:
• Walk the floor and look at each machine from a worker’s point of view. If anyone can reach a dangerous part while it is running, fix it now.
• Put physical guards and interlocks first. Training and procedures should support engineering controls, not replace them.
• Revisit past decisions. If you have considered and rejected a safety control, review that decision and record your reasons.
• Get a qualified machinery safety expert to confirm your guarding meets current standards.

Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.