A company’s ‘naivety and carelessness’ about the risks of the substances it was handling has led to a conviction and fine, though no actual harm was caused. The case highlights employers’ need to make sure they’re aware of their duties under the law.  

The company was the provider of specialised transport services, including long distance road transport and the storage of containers.  

A long-term arrangement with another business providing agricultural fumigation products and services involved transporting quantities of dichloropropene (a pesticide) and chloropicrin (a fumigant). 

Due to shipping delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the other business compensated by ordering more chemicals than it needed in the short term, and significant quantities remained on the wharf at considerable cost to the company.  

Since there was a ten-year relationship between the two businesses, the transport company offered to collect the excess containers from the wharf and keep them on an interim basis at its workplace in suburban Adelaide.  

In the mistaken belief that the goods would be seen as being in transit, as opposed to being stored, the director reasoned that the usual requirements for keeping dangerous substances and having the appropriate licence did not apply. 

Both chemicals are dangerous substances for the purposes of South Australia’s Dangerous Substances Act 1979 and both can cause injury and environmental damage.  

Dichloropropene is flammable and toxic to humans and aquatic life, with long-lasting effects.  Chloropicrin is also flammable, and very toxic to humans – a concentration in air over two parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and health. Amongst other things, it can cause skin corrosion and irritation, eye damage and irritation, and can compromise respiratory function. It is also hazardous to aquatic environments.  

The amounts kept on the company’s premises were well in excess of the maximum amounts permissible without a licence under the DS Act – 1,200 litres for dichloropropene and 250 litres or kilograms for chloropicrin – and the company did not have the requisite licence. 

 

Visited by safety inspectors 

Based on information received, inspectors from SafeWork SA attended the workplace in February 2023, and estimated that the company was keeping over 100,000 litres of dichloropropene and 13,000 litres of chloropicrin in 11 ISO containers on its premises. 

The containers were stored next to each other, stacked on two levels beside a railway track. The inspectors observed that the area with the containers was not bunded to contain spills and did not have appropriate placarding. 

Safework SA’s investigation found no evidence of any controls in place to prevent or contain spills, no protection from impact by vehicles on site, no additional security to restrict access, no adequate emergency plan to manage the risks of storing the prescribed dangerous substances at the workplace, no adequate training of workers in the risks of storage of these chemicals, and no fire protection equipment nearby or engagement with the emergency services regarding storage of the dangerous substances. 

No risk assessment had been carried out and no consideration had been given to the risk of spills or loss of containment. 

The transport company was charged with offences under ss 11 and 14 of the Dangerous Substances Act 1979 – it had failed to take appropriate precautions and exercise reasonable care to avoid endangering anyone’s health or safety or the safety of property, and it had failed to prevent the risk of environmental harm. In addition, it did not hold the appropriate licence for keeping a prescribed dangerous substance on the premises. 

The company pleaded guilty, and the sentence was decided in the South Australian Employment Court. The maximum fines for these offences are $250,000 and $50,000 respectively. 
 

In Court 

Expert evidence established that if a single container of dichloropropene or chloropicrin had been released into the atmosphere in weather conditions as they were on the day of the inspectors’ visit, there would have been significant on-site and off-site consequences.  

A leak of chloropicrin in concentrations over 2 ppm would be immediately dangerous to life and health between 800 and 1700 metres down wind. Any member of the public inhaling the vapours would have been at risk of death or serious injury. A less concentrated release would have had similar effects but at a reduced distance.  

A leak of dichloropropene would form a cloud of flammable vapours at distances of up to 50 metres. If an ignition source was introduced, dichloropropene would ignite. Thus, although no actual harm was caused, the potential for such harm was clear. 

Deputy President Judge Brian Gilchrist found that ‘in this case the offences were not flagrant or motivated by greed’. Rather, they occurred because of a lack of knowledge as to the applicable legal obligations due to naivety or carelessness, but that ‘in the context of a company that might be expected to have regularly transported dangerous goods, that naivety or carelessness is disturbing’. 

‘The environmental and personal harm that could have occurred because of the s 11 offence may have been significant, such that this must be seen as serious offending.’ 

With regard to the appropriate sentence, general deterrence was important, but the company was entitled to considerable credit for is prior good record, its co-operation with Safework SA, its genuine remorse, and its commitment to future compliance. 

But for the early guilty pleas, penalties of $70,000 and $8,000 would have been appropriate for the two offences. After the full discount was applied, the company was ordered to pay total fines of $47,600, plus costs and a contribution to the Victims of Crime Levy. 
 

What it means for employers 

Spills, leaks, fires and explosions resulting from the storage of dangerous chemicals have the potential to cause serious harm to people, property and waterways, so it’s vital for workplaces where such substances are stored in quantities over specified levels to be in full compliance with dangerous goods laws. 
 

Read the judgment 

Glenn Farrell v TRG Transport Pty Ltd [2025] SAET 112 (10 October 2025)