This is a case I have looked at before, and often use in management training to help explain the concept of reasonably practicable, and the relationship between reasonably practicable and the hierarchy of controls.
I was prompted to post it following the release of Safe Work Australia’s guidance material on reasonably practicable.
The case involved the prosecution of Transpacific Industries following a fatality in 2009. In an earlier, almost identical incident, Transpacific had responded to a breach of its procedures with what the Court described as “robust disciplinary action“. When the repeat incident occurred in 2009 the question that was argued was whether the earlier disciplinary action was a “sufficient response“: Was it reasonably practicable? You can access the video discussion of the case here, and a copy of the case here.
To receive future updates and case studies, please subscribe to the blog, or follow me on twitter.
Regards.
Greg Smith
My Safety Thoughts 
Where higher levels of controls are available it can be applied. However there are cases where the bulk of the control rests with the honesty of the worker or employee. For example a driver and fatigue risks. A driver may turn up for work with a serious lack of sleep, but he can declare falsely that he has had enough sleep. How would such a case be considered.