Skip to main content
Subcontractor WHS Management: A Practical Guide for Construction Managers Without a Safety Team
March 18, 2026Uninsured Employer Hit With $60,000 Workers Compensation Bill. After Worker’s Third Day on the Job Only
March 18, 2026
under a broken-down Mitsubishi bus on the Burnett Highway near Ban Ban Springs, Queensland. Before he did, he looked the bus owner in the eye and said: “The handbrake must stay on. My life depends on it.“
Safe System
Minutes later, the bus rolled forward off its wooden chocks and pinned him to the ground.
The Queensland Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 5 March 2026 in Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors QSC 26. The total damages bill exceeded $2.5 million: $546,175 against his employer Claytons Towing Service (assessed under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)) and $1,970,874 against the Transport Accident Commission under common law principles. Zero contributory negligence was found against Anderson.
The most confronting part of this case is not the man who released the handbrake. It is that Anderson’s employer had already set the stage for this outcome, long before that bus ever broke down. It comes down to a failure in their safe system of work — and a single line missing from a SWMS.
What Actually Happened
Bus owner Edward Van Der Veer had been travelling the Burnett Highway when a warning light appeared. He pulled into a truck lay-by, noticed oil leaking from the engine and called for a tow.
Anderson arrived, inspected the bus and confirmed it needed towing. Before getting underneath to attach the towing gear and remove the tail shaft, he walked Van Der Veer through one non-negotiable instruction: the handbrake stays on. He explained why. He was explicit. Van Der Veer even asked, “Do you want me to release the handbrake before we leave?” and Anderson shut it down immediately.
Then everyone exited the bus.
What the dashcam footage captured next was Van Der Veer, alone at the front of the bus, bending down toward the handbrake lever. Fifteen seconds after Anderson slid underneath the bus, it rolled forward off the wooden blocks. The spare tyre housing crushed his chest and abdomen.
As Anderson lay on the road, Van Der Veer knelt beside him and said: “I thought you wanted the brakes let off.”
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Van Der Veer released the handbrake despite Anderson’s explicit instruction, despite knowing the worker was about to go underneath, and despite being the only person with the opportunity to do so.
The Employer’s Admission That Changes Everything
This is where the case becomes essential reading for every safety professional in Australia.
At the start of the trial, Claytons Towing Service admitted breach of duty. Not because they watched their driver get crushed. Because when investigators looked at their safe system of work, they found a fundamental gap.
Claytons’ procedure required operators to use either the handbrake or chock the wheels of a vehicle being towed, but not both. The system treated these as interchangeable options rather than layered controls.
That single design flaw in their Safe Work Method Statement made them equally liable as the man who physically released the brake.
The court found that Claytons failed to have a system requiring operators to apply the handbrake and chock the wheels as independent, simultaneous controls. Had that been the documented requirement, Anderson would have re-confirmed the handbrake before going under. Not because he was careless, but because his procedure would have demanded it.
According to Safe Work Australia’s Model Code of Practice for Managing the Work Environment and Facilities, effective systems of work must include controls that protect workers from hazards created by people other than the worker themselves. An either/or control fails this standard.
Why “Either/Or” Is Never Enough for Life-Critical Controls
This case is a textbook example of what goes wrong when organisations treat safety controls as interchangeable rather than complementary.
In vehicle recovery work, both the handbrake and wheel chocking serve the same goal of preventing movement, but they address different failure modes:
- The handbrake relies on mechanical integrity and on nobody releasing it
- Wheel chocks provide a physical barrier that works regardless of handbrake status
When you require only one, you create a single point of failure. When a third party enters that zone of risk, your single control has already been compromised before your worker has done anything wrong.
A properly designed SWMS for vehicle recovery must treat these as mandatory concurrent controls. The worker confirms the handbrake. The worker chocks the wheels. Both. Every time. Before anyone goes under.
WorkSafe Queensland guidance on plant and equipment safety reinforces that where the consequence of a control failure is serious injury or death, controls must be independent of each other and must not rely on a single person’s compliance.
This principle also aligns directly with the Hierarchy of Controls, which prioritises engineering controls and physical barriers above administrative measures such as verbal instructions. Telling someone to leave a handbrake alone sits at the bottom of that hierarchy. Locking them out of the cab sits near the top.
The Third Party Problem Nobody Talks About in SWMS Design
One of the most underappreciated dimensions of this case is that the person who released the handbrake had no WHS obligations, no safety training and no employment relationship with Claytons. Van Der Veer was the bus owner, a member of the public.
Because Claytons’ system did not account for an untrained third party being present in the workspace, their system failed the moment Van Der Veer walked back onto that bus.
This is not unique to towing. Consider any scenario where workers operate alongside people outside their direct control:
- A building inspector accessing a site with the homeowner present
- A field technician working at a customer’s premises
- A delivery driver operating at a third-party loading dock
- A maintenance contractor in an occupied commercial facility
If your SWMS assumes everyone in the workspace will follow instructions and stay out of critical zones, you do not have a SWMS. You have a wishlist.
Effective SWMS design must account for who else could be present, what they could do, and what controls prevent critical systems from being interfered with regardless of third-party behaviour. That might mean physical lockout. It might mean a final visual check before entering a hazard zone. It might mean physically removing access to a control before the worker is exposed.
Whatever the solution, it cannot rely solely on a verbal instruction to a bystander.
The National Construction Code safety obligations and state-based WHS regulations all share a common thread: foreseeable risks must be controlled, and a foreseeable risk includes the predictable behaviour of untrained people in your work zone.
What Courts Expect from Safe Systems of Work
The court’s finding of zero contributory negligence against Anderson is a lesson in what the judiciary actually expects of workers and, by extension, what it expects of employers.
Anderson did not re-confirm the handbrake before going under the bus. He heard the metal-on-metal sound when he first raised it, saw the handbrake in the up position and received an explicit verbal assurance from the bus owner. The court found his failure to conduct a final check was not negligence. It was a reasonable response to what he had already verified, in the context of a system that did not require him to do more.
The standard is not perfection. It is what a reasonable person in that role, under that system, would have done. As confirmed in McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, the system of work itself shapes what conduct is reasonable for a worker to follow. When an employer’s system is silent on a control, you cannot turn around and blame the worker for not inventing it.
For a deeper breakdown of how courts assess contributory negligence in workplace injury cases, see our guide on WHS prosecutions and case law in Queensland.
If your system requires it, it gets done. If your system does not require it, the employer wears the consequence when it is missed.
Practical Steps: Audit Your Vehicle Recovery SWMS Today
If your business involves any form of vehicle recovery, fleet servicing, mechanical work or roadside assistance, take these actions now:
- Review your SWMS for either/or controls. Any safety control that can be substituted for another in a life-critical task needs to become a concurrent requirement.
- Add third-party exclusion zones. Document explicitly who can be present during under-vehicle work and physically control access where possible.
- Build a pre-task confirmation into your system. Before any worker enters a vehicle’s hazard zone, your SWMS should require a documented, final verification of all restraint controls.
- Retrain on the Hierarchy of Controls. Verbal instructions to a third party are not a WHS control. If that is your last line of defence, your risk assessment is incomplete.
- Document everything. As this case shows, the employer’s admitted absence of a documented system was central to the finding of liability. A SWMS template that is signed, reviewed and version-controlled protects your business in court.
For help building a safe system of work that holds up under legal scrutiny, explore our resources at HSE Direct.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a safe system of work?
A safe system of work is a documented procedure that identifies hazards in a task, assesses their risk and prescribes the controls required to perform the task safely. It forms the foundation of WHS compliance under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Read more in our safe system of work guide.
What is a SWMS and when is it required?
A Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) is a specific type of safe system of work required for high-risk construction work under WHS regulations. It must identify each high-risk activity, the hazards involved and the controls to be applied. See our SWMS templates and guides for practical examples.
Can an employer be liable if a third party causes a workplace injury?
Yes. As confirmed in Anderson v Claytons Towing Service QSC 26, employers can be found equally or fully liable where their system of work failed to adequately control a foreseeable risk, even when that risk was triggered by a third party outside their direct control.
What is the Hierarchy of Controls?
The Hierarchy of Controls is a ranked framework under Australian WHS law that prioritises elimination, substitution, isolation and engineering controls above administrative controls and PPE. Verbal instructions are an administrative control and sit near the bottom of the hierarchy.
Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors QSC 26, Supreme Court of Queensland, delivered 5 March 2026. Case reference: S713/2022.
