By Grant Mitchell, Partner and Madison Hornabrook, Lawyer

The South Australian Employment Tribunal’s sentencing remarks in Templeton v Parilla Premium Potatoes Pty Ltd [2026] SAET 42 illustrates the factors that courts and tribunals will take into account in assessing penalties in a WHS prosecution.

Factual Background

The defendant operated a horticulture and agriculture farming business. The business owned a single engine Cessna aircraft.

In late 2023, Managing Director and licensed pilot, Mr Pye, boarded the aircraft, preparing for a business flight. Mr Shah was an employee who worked in the packing house. He was going to be a passenger on the flight.

Parilla had not applied safety systems to the aircraft or its surroundings. The hangar and taxiway were not included on the site safety plan. The only control in place was a single prior verbal instruction to Mr Shah about approaching the aircraft door from the rear right-hand side.

Mr Pye started the aircraft’s engine. Mr Shah approached the aircraft a few minutes later. He was intending to embark by walking from the rear left-hand side, around the front of the aircraft to the right-hand side, contrary to the instruction. Mr Shah was struck multiple times by the rotating propellor.

Mr Pye then immediately powered down the aircraft’s engine and another passenger provided first aid to Mr Shah who sustained traumatic injuries from shoulder to hand, with multiple fractures and partial finger amputations.

The Investigation

Following an investigation by SafeWork SA, Parilla admitted that it had breached its primary duty under s 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the safety of workers travelling in the aircraft.

Parilla pleaded guilty to a category 2 offence under s 32 of the Act, for a failure that ‘exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness’.

Sentence

The maximum penalty for a s 32 offence is a fine of $1,500,000.

In considering penalty, the Tribunal took into account Parilla’s early guilty plea and early acceptance of responsibility without plea bargaining over the separate charge that was initially laid against Mr Pye. Parilla’s accountability in making reparations for the harm it caused to Mr Shah were significant facts in support of the penalty reduction.

The Tribunal commented that Parilla’s full acceptance of responsibility “is to be commended. It did so without regard to Mr Shah’s minimum legal rights or self-interest, and it did not wait to be prosecuted before it acted with decency”.

Other factors weighed in favour of Parilla’s contrition after the incident. These include:

• Parilla’s full cooperation with the investigation.
• Parilla and the Pye family provided significant levels of personal and financial support to Mr Shah.
• Parilla provided a driver for Mr Shah.
• Parilla ensured Mr Shah was not disadvantaged by the workers compensation scheme, and his employer made up the shortfall and paid an expected bonus.
• Parilla paid the visa and travel expenses of Mr Shah’s family to visit him during recovery.
• Mr Pye expressed a personal apology to Mr Shah and his family.
• Mr Shah had access to more training and received a promotion after the offence.

Although this was Parilla’s first WHS offence, the Tribunal considered that prior offences by Mr Shah’s employer Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd (Parilla and Zerella are both owned by The Pye Group with Mr Pye as director) are relevant sentencing considerations in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the three prior offences should have prompted Mr Pye to sufficiently review Parilla’s safety systems. Even though Mr Pye was not director at the time of the first two offences, “Zerella’s bad history of safety compliance was not erased by Mr Pye taking control”. Consequently, the Tribunal held there remains a moderate need for specific deterrence.

Parilla made numerous changes in response to the incident. The new hazard controls include designated aircraft operating areas that must be fenced off, designated passenger boarding zones, flight safety briefings, a prohibition on “hot loading”, and a prohibition on boarding the aircraft without a pilot accompanying. Parilla has committed to obtaining an independent safety audit of these measures.

The Tribunal imposed a conviction and a $600,000 fine on Parilla, reduced by 40% to $360,000 for an early guilty plea.

Key Takeaways

• Genuine levels of remorse, contrition and restitution of employers are key considerations of the Tribunal when imposing penalties.
• Prior WHS convictions within related entities, particularly where the same director is involved, provide a greater need for specific deterrence principles.
• Employers must implement safety systems, physical controls and documented procedures to comply with their work health and safety duty, verbal instructions will not substitute.